Lodi Facing Million Dollar Lawsuit

Quote

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.

Ah, but it's politically incorrect and/or treasonous for you to say this. And there's no raw emotion behind it. Anyhow, you should be shouted down.

Quote

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

I am a little confused by your post, popsjumper, there's too many quotes and quotes of replies to quotes, but if I understand correctly you're taking issue with something the moderator said. Although I am not sure what you're having issues with, I would plead to keep this civil and not let this post go up in "flames" (pun intended).

My reading of his post, I think he's merely saying that the rules are posted in Lodi as evidently and in plain a sight as any place, namely on your ticket..

And it's in plain English. Actually, I got one right here:

"THE PERSON USING THIS TICKET ASSUMES ALL RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY.

MANAGEMENT MAY DESIGNATE WHERE HOLDER IS TO BE SEATED AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THE LICENSE GRANTED BY THIS TICKET."

Quote

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.

Interestingly, when I did my first H&P at Lodi, Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE on the plane told me to keep my head down out the door because I could hit the tail, as they don't level the plane for H&P's. With that in mind, I doubt this jumper didn't know not to get out low.

I always get amusement from reading these sorts of posts, probably because going through law school with an "accept responsibility for yourself" attitude put me on a direct collision with economic theories w/r/t tort law.

If Lodi could have taken steps to mitigate the risk of injury at low cost, I hope this lawsuit (or the likely settlement) exacts a steep toll, so as to encourage other similiarly situated drop zones to adopt similar practices (i.e. internalize their liability costs).

For those of you cursing the jumper, where do you personally draw the line w/r/t the injury no longer being the jumper's sole responsibility?

What if (extreme hypothetical) the pilot was intoxicated and forgot to level the plane, at that point do you still allocate responsibility to the jumper? At some point the scale needs to start tipping...

(edited to fix typos)

Quote

What if (hypothetical) the pilot was intoxicated and forgot to level the plane, at that point do you still allocate responsibility to the jumper? At some point the scale needs to start tipping...

Bad example. With the exception of an aircraft emergency situation, the skydiver makes the decision of whether or not to get out of the plane, not the pilot. A jumper can always choose to ride the plane back down (though if the pilot were actually intoxicated/impaired and I was aware of it, I'd probably take my chances under my canopy over riding the plane down).

Quote

Bad example

Perhaps you misunderstood the point of that portion of my comment. The hypothetical is merely trying to flush-out personal opinions as to at which point responsibility for injury becomes shared between the DZ and the jumper.

Clearly that was not the case here, but in my mind, one's answer to the question above bears significantly on how much credence I give their opinion in general.

Quote

I always get amusement from reading these sorts of posts, probably because going through law school with an "accept responsibility for yourself" attitude put me on a direct collision with economic theories w/r/t tort law.

You know what I find amusing? The google ads on the side of this thread. NOT! Here I am trying to find out who else has a problem with Lodi being sued and look who's advertising.



Well I guess that answers one of my questions.... who could possibly benefit from this lawsuit?

Quote

***I always get amusement from reading these sorts of posts, probably because going through law school with an "accept responsibility for yourself" attitude put me on a direct collision with economic theories w/r/t tort law.

You know what I find amusing? The google ads on the side of this thread. NOT! Here I am trying to find out who else has a problem with Lodi being sued and look who's advertising.


This is a shortsighted response, not uncommon on these sorts of threads. IMO, what does the most damage to the sport is INCIDENTS, and when INCIDENTS can be prevented through minor changes in practices and policies they should be taken.

Nontheless, it seems that my opinion is not shared by may of the older members of the sport. These people often hold the opinion that once AFF is completed, you're on your own.

I've seen this behavior manifest itself in many ways, not the least of which was someone yelling at me for attempting to verify my spot on a packed load.

Coming back to the point at hand, my post is not saying anything about the particular facts of this matter - even reading this thread and the incidents thread, I'm woefully uninformed to decide where fault lies. I probably differ from you in that I can at least recognize that liabitily is often shared (in varying amounts) between jumper and DZ.

Proper safety measures will shift those relative balances, and hopefully reduce incidents. Less incidents will reduce the stigma, which will feed into better recruitment. Sometimes, a law suit is needed to induce these changes, expressly when people share the aforementioned attitudes.

I don't follow your advertising comment - but in case you're wondering, I'm a corporate attorney - I wouldn't not the first thing about handling litigation.

Quote

I don't follow your advertising comment

I think he has a moral objection to skydiving in Sonoma wine country. Or something like that.

Quote

...I've jumped at the Farm, even shaken your hand, yet you couldn't remember me a few weeks later.

Indeed! But you just don't get it about the reason why.

DSE, I've told you before...I have nothing for you...nothing at all.

Quote

You're the one that introduced tandems into the discussion.

Quote

This thread isn't about tandems. No one mentioned tandems until you did.

Read post #7 and get back to me.

Quote

I wonder what the ratio of tandem incidents of the Farm vs Lodi might be.

I feel sorry for you.

Quote

I've got at least 75 jumps at Lodi over many months in varying conditions.
You've never been there.

Oh...excuse me Mr. High-jump-numbers-at-Lodi Skygod. Now do you see what I meant about your arrogance?
Meh....probably not.

Go away...just go away...your attitude just turns my stomach.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

I have jumped at Lodi, and because of many safety issues I choose not to again.

I have never been employed by anyone at The Parachute Center (Lodi)

Quote

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.

I am glad to hear that there is. And that sounds like a great principle. Hopefully applicable to this case. You say you're "venturing" so would you know whether that principle is applied in skydiving lawsuits?

And no, I don't have a moral problem with skydiving in the Wine Country, unless it would be at a dropzone run by someone that helps shut down Lodi in order to get more business ;-)

Spot, it's unsafe to put jumpers out on a climbing jumprun. Period. Ask Larry Hill.

It's also no secret that Bill had his FAA A&P/IA rating pulled.

How many airplanes has he wrecked? How many friends have you had nearly killed because he was at the controls doing it "his way".

How many major FAR violations are acceptable?


Or is it all ok, because that's the stuff the average fun jumper never sees/looks for, and well the prices are low?

Quote

I am a little confused by your post, popsjumper, there's too many quotes and quotes of replies to quotes,

Sorry 'bout that. That's what happens when one responds to the originator that stuffs many convoluted thoughts into one post. I'm as guilty as the next.

Quote

but if I understand correctly you're taking issue with something the moderator said...
My reading of his post, I think he's merely saying that the rules are posted in Lodi as evidently and in plain a sight as any place, namely on your ticket..

All those rules first referred to in Post#12 by DSE have nothing at all to do with this incident. He neglects to mention anything posted at the DZ about how to exit the plane under the conditions that the young jumper faced. Is there such a rule posted at Lodi?

-----------------

On a side note, I received a PM asking for clarification on my position regarding this incident. Here is my response (My opinion...anyone can agree or disagree. I'm not going to argue about it...how's that for arrogance? ):

"Yes, I know exactly how it is on the 99...we flew one for just short of a year at Skydive Monroe.

Yes, everyone was warned and visitors told and told again.
We never had a strike but there were several close calls.

Was the jumper at fault? Partly.
Was the pilot at fault? Yes.

Why only partly on the jumper's fault?
-Because he was a relative young jumper. Was it because of stupidity or lack of skill or both?
-Because had the pilot had real concern for jumper safety and leveled off with a cut, it wouldn't have happened to the kid.

My position:
Safety first, gas prices, time to altitude and ALL else second.

No cut on a H&P ESPECIALLY in a 99 is showing a severe lack of concern for jumper safety I don't care who you are nor how long you've owned a DZ nor how long you've been a pilot nor if you're considered a "good guy" or not.

I hope that clarifies.
Thanks for asking
Andy "

(thinking back on it...it may have been more than a year....I'm having memory issues.)


Edited to add: Yes, indeed some planes have no issues with this problem. Hell, CASA exit at high-speed is fun!

Quote

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.

You have my respect.

Wow, this is the first I've heard of this lawsuit Lodi is my home DZ. I finished AFF there about a month ago and just did a few solo jumps there the other day! From what I've seen Bill's a great guy and always seems to focus on safety. For every one of my solo jumps he's had a more experienced jumper go with me to pick out a rig, show me how to inspect it, and know its ready to jump. I've also paid for jumps and had the load shut down so I was given a raincheck. It would really be a shame if they shut down because of this. I've just started getting comfortable at this DZ and there's a lot of great people there. It'd be a shame to force a bunch of adrenaline addicts to go somewhere else to get their fix

Plukk

I love it when you americans start harping on about safety issues.

In 7 days of jumping in the states last year, i saw so many things which i thought were plain stupid / dangerous / ill thought out.

But you weigh up these things in your own mind, and decide whether to stay and jump or not.

Your lawsuit culture is really starting to bite you on the ass out stateside.

I'm going to hit lodi this year for a couple of weeks, it sounds like my sort of place.

Quote

It's also no secret that Bill had his FAA A&P/IA rating pulled.

Has it been in the past and if so, how did he get them reinstated ? His current Airmen profile shows A&P and the IA issued 03/2009

I cannot argue that it's Bills way or the highway, but I feel that if you are a competent experienced jumper you can make the decisions for yourself to jump or not. That, however may get you kicked out of the place :)

On a different note, Bill does sport a hefty inventory of very nice Sigma tandem rigs, as opposed to many dropzones that I see using old beat up Vectors or archaic looking Racers. So maybe Bill is not that unsafe ???? (caution : I hold no instructional ratings)

Quote

you americans .... blah, blah, blah ...
Your lawsuit culture is really starting to bite you on the ass out stateside.

Not really. Something's gotta pay for our dentistry and orthodontics. But I can see how Brits wouldn't understand.

Quote

In 7 days of jumping in the states last year, i saw so many things which i thought were plain stupid / dangerous / ill thought out.

Seriously, though, please share some examples. (For example, we tend to view the BPA as way-over-regulating the sport in the UK. On the other hand, mandatory flight-line gear checks aren't a half-bad idea...)

I agree, reducing the possibility of incidents of any type should foremost on the DZ manager/owners mind.....thats just common sense and smart business. No one is ever going to convince me that anyone will save huge money by not reducing power and putting the plane in a safe config for jumping...hell ,whats it take two minutes ? WTF is the hurry ? More fuel is wasted boarding unorganised jumpers then on hop n pops...The jumper was a idiot for not heeding advice given to him,,providing a situation where idiots can shine is even more idiotic..........

Quote

On a different note, Bill does sport a hefty inventory of very nice Sigma tandem rigs, as opposed to many dropzones that I see using old beat up Vectors or archaic looking Racers. So maybe Bill is not that unsafe ????

That is exactly right, he has 60 sigmas all in excellent condition, and the best gear by far than most dz's I have ever been to, brand new javelin odysseys for rental gear with sky hooks, no more than 90 degree turns below 1000'...

how is that unsafe practice.

Look at the rental gear at most dropzones and the shity tandem gear many have.

Shit happens and when you turn around more than a 1000 jumpers in a weekend (tandems and fun jumpers) shit will happen. When you do total numbers like bill does, shit will happen.

Just because one moron can't listen to instructons and wants to act like an asshole...

Quote

Or is it all ok, because that's the stuff the average fun jumper never sees/looks for, and well the prices are low?

JP, I'm not suggesting anything was or was not "OK."
What I'm suggesting is that none of us know what happened here, because we weren't there. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with "prices."

Believe it or not, I believe in the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. I understand that many Americans have difficulty with this concept.

My momma raised me to believe that's just plain wrong.
Especially at a time when the DZO is facing a jury trial. At the end of the day, whether it's a DZO or person accused of leaving their trampoline accessible to kids...I find it difficult to beat the shit out of them. That's a responsibility of the jury, not a bunch of uninformed skydivers.
Why is it that the media is always full of shit when it comes to fatalities, but media reports are accepted as gospel in this sort of situation? Have we heard any statement from someone who was there? I haven't. What I have read is an anonymous post from a person claiming that "six very experienced instructors said "blah blah blah...." Yet the NTSB report says three instructors said that the jumper screwed up. I'll take the NTSB report, Vanna....because at least it's a disempassioned investigative body that isn't involved in a determination of guilt or innocence, just the facts.

I'm not interested in defending Lodi, I'm interested in defending the concept of innocent until demonstrated otherwise or until I experience first hand, what some have described here. I'm not about to take your word or anyone else' word for it.

I've watched a lot of skydivers putting on wingsuits before they knew what they were getting into; two of those ended up as fatalities, both of whom I knew. Why has no one said a word about the responsibility of the instructors that helped the dead wingsuiters get into that situation?? After all, these guys are dead, not broken. Not one word has been said about the culpability of the "instructors" and the role they played in the death, yet some of you want to burn down a DZO on hearsay.

That illogic doesn't wash with me.

Quote

Believe it or not, I believe in the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. I understand that many Americans have difficulty with this concept.

Some of us still believe that Spot.

There's no question we're a nation of rubberneckers, second guessers and armchair quarterbacks...however in instances such as this, it behooves us ALL to keep or 'opinions' to ourselves and see how the thing plays out.


Speculation regarding the causes of a particular incident are of value and can save lives, finger pointing as to liability without ALL the pertinent facts is not only futile but harmful.

I say let's not be so quick to throw one of our own under the bus...especially on the premise of opinions based upon hearsay and conjecture.

There probably are valid arguments for all the opinions in the matter, but unless one was actually there and knows exactly what went on...the static of speculation serves only to cloud the process with irrelevant chatter.

~And conceivably 'could' effect the outcome in an unfairly bias way.


It's just not the right thing to do, and who knows...the next bus just might be coming 'your' way.

Again - please note I'm making no criticism w/r/t Lodi, I'm criticizing what i've seen at dropzones in general.

Quote

That is exactly right, he has 60 sigmas all in excellent condition, and the best gear by far than most dz's I have ever been to, brand new javelin odysseys for rental gear with sky hooks, no more than 90 degree turns below 1000'...

That's great w/r/t gear, however, dropzones have a bigger responsibility - provided a safe landing area, setting appropriate landing patterns, constantly edjucating the younger participants of the sport. DZs should excel in all these areas to again *reduce incidents* (and in case you didn't read it the first time, incidents lead to bad press and rising insurance costs which increases costs pf partipation in the sport and reduces the number of participants)

Quote

Just because one moron can't listen to instructons and wants to act like an asshole...

Often the jumper will be solely at fault, and often he/she won't be. What pisses me off is that people don't take many simple steps to edjucate young jumpers, those who lack the experience and are thus more likely to be injured.

You may think that mentioning a low-tail on a plane to a jumper with 100 jumps absolves you of all responsibility (morally and legally) - and you may be right - but you may not be. Perhaps a paper sign by the door would be better, perhaps a green/red jump light - I don't know.... but this attitude leads experienced jumpers to disregard and demean young jumpers - it makes the young jumpers less likely to process and understand, and more reluctant to ask questions.

This thread is a great example of the spoon feeding problem we have in the US.

People are able, but not willing to take responsibility of educating themselves. We are jumping out of airplanes - this is a sport where inaction WILL KILL (unless you got an AAD :). Putting your fate in someone elses hands is nice when you are doing a tandem with someone who you think :) is a trained professional. When you become a licenses skydiver, you are signed off for SOLO jumps. That means no hand holding. Thus while it should be given, it should not be expected to be babysat through every possible scenario. The chances are that if you are a licensed skydiver, you are an able bodied, consenting adult with some brain activity - use that head for something other than having a nice shiny helmet.

You are willing to work hard and buy yourself that $3000 rig ? Well, spend about the same amount of time educating yourself about your gear and the sport. Cause gear only works as good as the people using it.