Lodi Facing Million Dollar Lawsuit

I have recently found out that Bill and Kathy Dause from Lodi are being slapped with a lawsuit in the millions that could easily shut them down if the fellow skydiver who is bringing on the suit prevails. From what I understand a skydiver with about 100 jumps seriously hurt himself jumping out of the plane and hitting the tail, which is a real tragedy. I found a newspaper report in the local newspaper here: http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/04/26/news/7_parachute_080426.txt

Although I feel for the guy and yet I am not gonna stop skydiving because of this either. You? And while I am not a regular at Lodi, I have to say, but over all the years I jumped there Bill and Kathy represent to me not only a rare dropzone that isnt about profits, but all about jumping, and maybe the last bastion of freedom where the waiver still fits on the back of the ticket for those few who somehow have not heard yet that they can get hurt or killed doing this... in other word... Lodi is one of the few places where you don't have to cover up your intelligence and responsibility for self with a dozen pages of legalese and a sticker on your forehead that tells you at all times that THE GROUND MIGHT BE CLOSER THAN IT APPEARS.

My questions to the skydiving community here in this forum: Is anybody else troubled by this? And second... if Lodi has to shut down as a result of this, are we as skydivers, those who ever jumped there and those who will never be able to do so then....are we okay with this? Who would possibly benefit from this? And what can we do to support Bill and Kathy?

/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3146957

There were a lot of opinions when this came up a year ago.

Quote

.......Although I feel for the guy ...
......

I feel nothing for the snivelly little bastard...
he had 100 jumps, he knew the score .... and now he's trying to score...

Quote

...My questions to the skydiving community here in this forum: Is anybody else troubled by this? .......... And what can we do to support Bill and Kathy?

we are all troubled by this
...... anyone who knows ANYONE who has a dropzone (large/small, inthe US, Canada, Europe etc, doesn't matter) should urge them to write this moron and tell him very plainly to NEVER show up at their DZ .....

I'd love to see his face if he suddenly started getting letter after letter telling him to keep his snivelly little ass away from their operation .....

Thanks for the link, NWFlyer... I wasn't aware of this thread I just joined.

Interesting read... I wonder though where this anonymous poster is coming from... seems like a hit piece, no? I quote: "Bill should have at least lowered the nose and did not, now with the other 6 very experienced instructors on the plane testifying against Bill, well lets just say it won't be cheap."

It doesn't sound like "ts1962" who posted was on the load, and no, neither was I, but if I read this I wonder... if there were "6 very experienced instructors" on that load, isn't it weird that not one of them tried to prevent that guy from jumping out if it was really that dangerous?

Just trying to understand what's going on.

Quote

Just trying to understand what's going on.

What's going on is a mistake was made by someone, most likely the injured party.
The mistake is speculative no matter how one looks at it. "Truth" will come out if it goes to trial. It may not be the correct "truth."
Either way...the earlier threads and potentially this one only serve as lawyer food in either direction.
The post you quoted was from an anonymous poster making unsubstantiated claims, said poster could have been being truthful or setting a flag in the sand for a later reference. The NTSB report doesn't reference "six instructors" but does reference 12 other skydivers, three of whom said the injured person "jumped up" and had been reprimanded for doing same on the previous day.

Karma is a mutha....

When it comes to the kid bringing the lawsuit, they never had the makings of a "skydiver", and shame on them....

But sympathy for Bill Dause? Give me a break.....

If he's looking for money for a legal defense, how about the dollars he saved by not putting an instructor on the plane with S/L students? Or the mandatory aircraft maintenance he decided wasn't needed? Or the substandard wages he pays instructors? Or the several hundred dollars he stole from 3 very nice tandem students a couple weekends ago?

I'm not feeling his pain.

Quote

If he's looking for money for a legal defense, how about the dollars he saved by not putting an instructor on the plane with S/L students? Or the mandatory aircraft maintenance he decided wasn't needed? Or the substandard wages he pays instructors? Or the several hundred dollars he stole from 3 very nice tandem students a couple weekends ago?

Fact or rumor? Bill owns a business like every other DZO out there. It's his perogative to do what he wants. If you don't like it, don't come. Tandem or fun jumper or tandem master, etc. There's a reason he puts so many loads up every day and it's not all about cheap jump tickets. Most dzs in the area now offer the same price for tickets.

Have you ever jumped at Lodi?

Majority of people who dislike Bill Dause deserved what they got for doing something they shouldn't have been doing...

Funny thing.
I don't know Bill...never met him.

Of all the posts I've read about Bill, those who like him talk about how he's such a great guy. (emotions)

Those who apparently don't like him talk about his business practices, his attitude towards safety and his approach to attending to FAA/USPA regulations and requirements. (actions)

I'd go with those relating actions. God/bad guy has nothing to do with our safety.

Seems to me that a "good" guy would be more concerned for our safety rather than the "my way or the highway" approach.

Did Bill fire you JP?

I have nothing else do add since I have never been there, other than the fact that jumpers that sue should be tarred and feathered.

Quote

...It's his perogative to do what he wants. If you don't like it, don't come. Tandem or fun jumper or tandem master, etc.

Lame argument. You assume that everyone knows what Bill wants to do and how he does it.
I'm sure tandem students know all about how Bill does business and all about the safety issues involved in skydiving. Up jumpers? Show me one that makes an intensive study of all those issues before jumping at a new DZ. Tandem masters? Your statement may have merit there...assuming that the TMs are smart enough to do their homework.

Quote

There's a reason he puts so many loads up every day and it's not all about cheap jump tickets. Most dzs in the area now offer the same price for tickets.

I'm having trouble figuring out how that applies to the issues raised in this thread.

Quote

Have you ever jumped at Lodi?

No. Not likely too either.

Quote

Majority of people who dislike Bill Dause deserved what they got for doing something they shouldn't have been doing...

Dude. That is one piss-poor attitude and if it's indicative of the DZs general mindset, it wouldn't bother me a bit to see the business sued to bankruptcy. Taking responsibility for oneself is a whole lot different than "deserving what you got".

That attitude...sounds a whole lot like Slyride supporters.

Quote

Seems to me that a "good" guy would be more concerned for our safety rather than the "my way or the highway" approach.

In some cases I might be inclined to agree with you some of the things I've heard about Lodi, howver in this case, it doesn't appear that Bills way or the highway was the situation.

According to the NTSB report-

Quote

According to the statements provided by the other skydivers, the accident skydiver jumped up in a similar manner the day before the accident flight. He was warned not to jump up when he exited the airplane as he barely missed the horizontal stabilizer the day before.

In the wake of this report there were allegations that the quoted skydivers were coached by Bill as to what to say and what not to say. I'm not in a postion to know if this is what happened, however, when I read this statement from the plantiffs lawyer -

Quote

In his lawsuit, Barton said Dause gave him the OK to jump from the plane without first deploying the aircraft's wing flaps, slowing down and leveling out the plane to a more horizontal position. Barton argued such protocol is necessary and would have prevented him from striking the tail as he embarked on his low-altitude jump.

- it makes it sound as if the plantiff was aware that a no-cut jumprun would result in the tail being low, and require a certain type of exit to maintain safety, and that no cut had occurred.

All of this just points to the fact that this was the jumpers fault. It should be no mystery that the plane was not in a jumprun configuration. Especially on a fast climbing plane like a 99, it's not hard to see that it's an uphill walk to the cockpit. According to his own statement, the plantiff knew all about aircraft configuration and different types of exits.

With this knowledge in mind, he continued on with his course of action, and was injured as a result.

Quote

You assume that everyone knows what Bill wants to do and how he does it.

If they don't, then they're intentionally ignorant. The rules are more plainly posted there than at most DZ's. One cannot not see the rules.

Quote

I'm sure tandem students know all about how Bill does business and all about the safety issues involved in skydiving.

We're not talking about tandem students, and I believe Lodi has as good a safety record regarding tandems as most any DZ.

I agree, suggesting someone "deserved what they got" is messed up and it makes me angry as hell to hear someone say so regardless of the action or consequence. Suppose the plaintiff had hit the tail hard enough to take it completely off? He'd already endangered the lives of everyone else on the aircraft through his jump-up exit. He could have killed them all. Would they have deserved death?

Burning Bill, Lodi, Beech, manufacturers, or skydiving at the stake in this thread only serves to benefit those that would harm our sport.

i don't think jamien is refering to the jumper that got hurt as deserving what he got. that of course was a tragedy that should not have happened. i think she is refering to people being asked...or told to leave the dz for doing something stupid or unsafe(same thing). and about Bill "stealing" a tandems money...you wern't there so you have no idea what you are talking about. i was there and without getting into all the boring details the customer got a rain check for his jump that HE MISSED because he was in the parking lot doing who knows what. this thread is just one of many reasons i have not logged onto dz.com in weeks people talking shit when they realy don't know the facts and should just shut the fuck up.

...stop feeding the sharks. FOOLS. Moderator, you should think to delete threads such as this until an open case is CLOSED. To all the others...STFU, both sides.

Quote

Lame argument. You assume that everyone knows what Bill wants to do and how he does it.

Quote

I'm not talking about the safety issues. It was said he "stole" money from tandems and my whole point was they know about rain checks they know about making their loads they watch the video and sign the waiver. They are told the proper information.

Quote

No. Not likely too either.

That's a shame, there are a lot of really cool experienced jumpers out there.

Quote

Dude. That is one piss-poor attitude and if it's indicative of the DZs general mindset, it wouldn't bother me a bit to see the business sued to bankruptcy. Taking responsibility for oneself is a whole lot different than "deserving what you got".

It came off wrong, I didn't mean for this one particular incident. I meant people who get kicked off the dz and then come on here and blast the dz because they are mad.



But staying on the true topic of the thread...I don't really agree with suing so maybe that's why I don't understand this guy at all. Ultimately you are responsible for your own actions. We all know the risks of the sport and hopefully everyone is doing their homework and doing what they are comfortable with. That includes jumping at dzs you are ok with, jumping with jumpers and pilots you are ok with, a rig you are comfortable with, and everything else that applies.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

Quote

All of this just points to the fact that this was the jumpers fault. It should be no mystery that the plane was not in a jumprun configuration. Especially on a fast climbing plane like a 99, it's not hard to see that it's an uphill walk to the cockpit. According to his own statement, the plantiff knew all about aircraft configuration and different types of exits.

With this knowledge in mind, he continued on with his course of action, and was injured as a result.

As I understand it, the aircraft could have easily been configured to to reduce the risk of injury. The defendant operated the aircraft at a high angle of attack (AOA) to conserve fuel and reduce turn-around times, both elements that would have served to increase the profitability of the accident flight. That action also increased the risk imposed upon the injured jumper, and the rest of the jumpers remaining in the aircraft. While the injured jumper had some skydiving experience, he did not likely have sufficient experience to fully understand the risk or the potential remedy, or he had insufficient skill to implement the proposed remedy. In any case, it appears that the accident could have been prevented if the defendant had operated the aircraft at a lower AOA.

Quote

While the injured jumper had some skydiving experience, he did not likely have sufficient experience to fully understand the risk or the potential remedy, or he had insufficient skill to implement the proposed remedy. In any case, it appears that the accident could have been prevented if the defendant had operated the aircraft at a lower AOA.

I agree that the AC could have been configured differently, but the tipping point for me is the reports that the jumper had a near miss with the tail the day before, and was informed at that time of the SOP for low passes.

At that point, I think the onus falls on the jumper to perform in a way that conforms to the SOP, or if unable, seek further instruction or cease exiting on a low pass.

If the near miss and subsequent discussion had not occurred the day before, then yes, I would agree that the mistake would be that of the management, but if the events of the previous day did transpire as reported, how can the jumper not be held responsible for his own actions?

He was aware of the problem, he was aware that his performance from the day before was not acceptable, and he went on to exit in a similar manner on the following day.

Say I went to a new DZ, and on my first jump swooped right next to the hanger, only to be told that swooping next to the hanger was not allowed as that area is open to spectators. If I return the next day and swoop next to the hanger, and hit a spectator, who is at fault?

Quote

...stop feeding the sharks. FOOLS. Moderator, you should think to delete threads such as this until an open case is CLOSED. To all the others...STFU, both sides.

How to Influence People 101


Normally, that post would cause me to stir the pot just to be contrary, but I can't - I like Bill and Kathy and love jumping at their DZ when I get the rare chance.

As far as this case, I have no info so can't comment nor am inclined to make things up.

Quote

What's going on is a mistake was made by someone, most likely the injured party. The mistake is speculative no matter how one looks at it. "Truth" will come out if it goes to trial. It may not be the correct "truth."

Thanks, DSE, for shedding some light on this and and I hope for Bill and all of us in skydiving that this goes away that easily. I take exception with IEJuggalo's call for my post to be deleted. What are you saying, Juggalo, put a cork in my mouth, fold my hands in my lap and "wait until this case is CLOSED" and Lodi gets shut down while a lawyer walks with millions in fees?

You know for me this goes a lot deeper than even this lawsuit. So the fellow that told me about this thing, and you know who you are, I used to jump with him and when I asked him whether that's okay with him what is going on and only half jokingly asked whether he would sue me too if my pilot chute opens in his face, but to my surprise he actually couldn't just say "NO, I wouldn't".

I mean what's next? Not only waivers to the DZ operator but waivers for and with everybody you go on a load with?

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather not put a cork in my mouth and wait until that's the state of the sport, but let you know how I feel and ask how everybody else feels. It seems to me this discussion is long overdue rather than ready for censorship.

In the fall of 1979, I took a very hard landing as a result of doing CRW too low (MY FAULT!). As I was later confronted with the bill for my 12 week hospital stay, I had several lawyers (unsolicited) tell me how they could “help me, at no cost to me!”

I was visiting a nice little drop zone in Wisconsin at the time of my stupidity. The idea of suing these people didn’t seem right, so I said “no thank you” and found another way to pay the bills. Some thirty years later, I still travel to that little Cessna DZ to make some of the best jumps I’ve ever done.

There should be a law that says “if you do something stupid, like jump from a plane, your act of stupidity is your own damn fault"!!! Buck up, Cupcake!

But, what do I know? I’m still a student of this sport.

Quote

I'm not talking about the safety issues.

You said, "...not putting an instructor on the plane with S/L students? Or the mandatory aircraft maintenance he decided wasn't needed..."
Safety issues.

Quote

It was said he "stole" money from tandems and my whole point was they know about rain checks they know about making their loads they watch the video and sign the waiver. They are told the proper information.

In that limited light, all's good.

Quote

That's a shame, there are a lot of really cool experienced jumpers out there.

It's not the jumpers, it's the problem with 99 flying with tail down not being addressed as an issue by the pilot...such a little thing that could add so much to skydiving safety.

Quote

It came off wrong, I didn't mean for this one particular incident. I meant people who get kicked off the dz and then come on here and blast the dz because they are mad.

Thanks for the clarification...all's good.

Quote

But staying on the true topic of the thread...I don't really agree with suing so maybe that's why I don't understand this guy at all. Ultimately you are responsible for your own actions. We all know the risks of the sport and hopefully everyone is doing their homework and doing what they are comfortable with. That includes jumping at dzs you are ok with, jumping with jumpers and pilots you are ok with, a rig you are comfortable with, and everything else that applies.

...and THAT makes all the sense in the world.

Quote

Quote

You assume that everyone knows what Bill wants to do and how he does it.

If they don't, then they're intentionally ignorant. The rules are more plainly posted there than at most DZ's. One cannot not see the rules.

Here we go with that arrogant "ignorant" shit again.
Somebody wants to handle S/L students however; somebody wants to maintain his plane however....is ANYONE up to speed on on those things at every DZ they go to?

Rules? What rules? Did someone mention "rules" to you? Reading comprehension, young man.

So taking your lead....
Are the"rules" on these issues posted?
No. Your arrogance is shining through.
(Aren't you glad I didn't use "ignorance"?)

Quote

We're not talking about tandem students

Wrong again...we, not you, were.

Quote

Burning AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, or EEE at the stake in this thread only serves to benefit those that would harm our sport helps increase the level of safety throughout the industry every time an issue is resolved.

Evidently, some of us are quite content to doing business as usual as long as it doesn't affect oneself.

I'm not the one posting "XXX dropzone does this, does that, and does the other thing" having never been to that dropzone.
The "rules" of the DZ are plainly posted on sheets of paper and posterboard. Common sense dictates the rest. It's "arrogant" to say "here are the rules, obey them?"

I'd say it's arrogant to go against what's posted on the wall in plain sight, and even more arrogant to ignore what experienced people have forewarned about. I'd wager that Lodi has a far higher percentage of people being kicked off the DZ for safety violations than most DZ's. Is it the safest DZ on the planet? Dunno. I've seen worse, I've certainly seen better. I've jumped at the Farm, even shaken your hand, yet you couldn't remember me a few weeks later. hmmmm? Memory issues, "young man?"

I don't know that the DZ puts students out on S/L without an instructor anymore than you do. At least I've had the opportunity to observe the DZ in action on multiple occasions, so I'm not speaking out of my backside, "young man."

You're the one that introduced tandems into the discussion. I wonder what the ratio of tandem incidents of the Farm vs Lodi might be. I'll bet they're fairly equal if not lesser than >
This thread isn't about tandems. No one mentioned tandems until you did.

You don't know any more about the actual incident than I do, or anyone else who wasn't there.
The one glaring difference between you and most in *this* instance, is that I've got at least 75 jumps at Lodi over many months in varying conditions.
You've never been there.

very nicely said and thank you. next time your at lodi look Foz and i up for a couple of jumps

Quote

There should be a law that says “if you do something stupid, like jump from a plane, your act of stupidity is your own damn fault"!!!

There is, or at least a principle of law: it's a defense called "the doctrine of assumption of the risk." I'd venture it's presented for the jury's consideration in virtually every skydiving lawsuit, assuming the case even makes it to trial. In most US jurisdictions, it's part of "common law", but is not codified by statute.

Now, if you want it to be codified by statute expressly applicable to skydiving, then you, as a citizen, should lobby your state legislators to introduce and pass a state statute making it the case. That's what grassroots participation in a democratic republic is all about.