Lodi Facing Million Dollar Lawsuit

Quote

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...

Don't walk in front of the propeller they kill.

Don't walk in front of traffic, it will kill you.

Don't crash into pedestrians.

Don't jump up when exiting a low wing aircraft,

these are all self explanitory things that are common sense.

If you jump up you will get bitten. period.

Quote

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.

Stop talking lawyer, or lawyer wanna be or whatever you are officially- esq. or whatever. You say you aren't talking about lodi yet here you are commenting and speculating on something you admittedly know jack sh*t about. you weren't there, you don't know what happened, you don't know the policies, signage, training... want me to keep listing sh*t you don't know that you're speculating on?

you have legal experience which can give your ill-informed statements undue weight. Please stop now and listen to what other guys with way more experience with this kind of stuff than you or I are suggesting- innocent til proven guilty, stfu until then.

remember, people programmed to f*ck up are bound to f*ck up (thank you darwin) no matter what training they received- lutz is an example- was it the instructors' fault he pulled his cutaway handle? maybe we should get more lawyers on that one to show how lutz is completely innocent and not responsible for any of his actions.

Anyway, silence yourself for the good of the rest of us por favor. I'd ask pops to as well, however i don't think there is a gag large enough on the planet for his mouth/ego.

edit- oh, and +1 to your last post likestojump!

I must disagree with you, BDashe. I think speuci’s posts have been excellent. While taking great care to not judge the specifics of this incident he is raising the issue that taking responsibility for oneself does not abrogate our responsibility as a community to keep this sport as safe as possible. And before someone jumps down my throat with the “if you really want to be safe, don’t jump” argument, what speuci is saying is that this issue is not black and white, and therefore deserves to be discussed. Seems right to me.

Quote

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

Just because a solo sign-off clears one for jumping solo, it does not that experienced members of the sport should stop educating the recent AFF grad.

Reading USPA literature won't work for most people (myself included) - experience is necessary to make learning concrete. I could read the USPA manual 1000 times and not retain the most important points. I need mentorship, and constant advice and knowledge transfer from older members.

In my opinion, your attitude (when pervasive) results in too few people transferring knowledge, which results in too much injuries.

Too many people (again in my opinion) use the "you're responsible for yourself" philosphy as an excuse to stop mentoring the younger divers.

Quote

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.

The majority of lawsuits we see filed are for self caused accidents. Someone screws up, gets hurt or killed. He or the family then files suit against anyone within 100 miles. Those suits are what do the most damage. It's not just in skydiving; this is seen in scuba, in backpacking/mountaineering, and I'm sure in the climbing world as well.

Because lawyers adopt a deep pockets strategy, you see the gear makers getting dragged in, the original instructor from years prior, sometimes any rated professional on the plane or boat. And since the cost of even a simple defense is high, a cheap settlement is often done rather than fighting back. This encourages more inappropriate suits.

Aside from the costs (and unnecessary process changes this can cause - WTF do I have to read my waiver into a video camera when we all know skydiving is dangerous), it also tends to mask the less common events where there really is a fault to determine. I don't accept the doctrine that there is never fault, but people still have to be responsible enough to know when it's their own fault, or just bad luck.

Quote

The majority of lawsuits we see filed are for self caused accidents. Someone screws up, gets hurt or killed. He or the family then files suit against anyone within 100 miles. Those suits are what do the most damage. It's not just in skydiving; this is seen in scuba, in backpacking/mountaineering, and I'm sure in the climbing world as well.

I agree that strike suits (no legal basis, used to extract a settlement) are a consequence of the legal system - but I disagree that "The majority of lawsuits we see filed are for self caused accidents." While that might be the conclusion of most people in this forum, if the pilot in this case turned on the jump light but didn't level the plane, then I don't consider this a self caused accident. Similarly, I don't consider the passenger who fell out of her a tandem harness a "self caused" accident.

Its a shame Lodi is getting sued, but if they ahve adopted needlessly reckless procedures that expose others to unecessary dangers, then I think a lawsuit is the proper response insofar as it will effect changes at other dropzones (albeit, maybe at the cost of the offending dropzone)

"it does not that experienced members of the sport should stop educating the recent AFF grad. "

This statement is irrelevant to this case. jumper had (clearly) been trained and retrained and was not a recent AFF grad with over 100 jumps.

Skydiving legal philosophy moved to another thread maybe? Or even a classroom on a university campus?

Quote

Quote

The majority of lawsuits we see filed are for self caused accidents. Someone screws up, gets hurt or killed. He or the family then files suit against anyone within 100 miles. Those suits are what do the most damage. It's not just in skydiving; this is seen in scuba, in backpacking/mountaineering, and I'm sure in the climbing world as well.

I agree that strike suits (no legal basis, used to extract a settlement) are a consequence of the legal system - but I disagree that "The majority of lawsuits we see filed are for self caused accidents." While that might be the conclusion of most people in this forum, if the pilot in this case turned on the jump light but didn't level the plane, then I don't consider this a self caused accident. Similarly, I don't consider the passenger who fell out of her a tandem harness a "self caused" accident.

It's an odd conclusion you have. Perhaps only one a lawyer would take. And one who hasn't really followed the sport very long.

This is Lodi's SOP. He was explicitly told how to handle the situation. He ignored such guidance. You can't go on and on about how jumpers need to be mentored and then excuse him for declining such advice. Unless you assert that the report that he was admonished for this practice within 24 hours of the accident was a lie, it's clear where the fault lies.

The tandem passenger is an interesting case, if you want to look at it from a detached, unemotional view, but it has little to do with skydiving accidents by licensed jumpers. Her fitness was an aspect, but most seem to blame the TM for not adjusting well rather than the maker who later altered the design in response.

Quote

Skydiving legal philosophy moved to another thread aybe? Or even a classroom on a university campus?

Gimme a break. I'm advocating that experienced people look out for less experienced people to reduce incidents SUCH AS THIS ONE, and i've merely mentioned that maybe the lawsuit at hand will bring about some changes at other dropzones.

Many of you can use the veil of "self-responsibility" as your excuse for not helping others. I believe you are doing the sport at large a great disservice, but hey, thats my opinion.

And I personally consider a 100 jump jumper inexperienced, but hey, thats my opinion too.

Quote

Quote

Skydiving legal philosophy moved to another thread aybe? Or even a classroom on a university campus?

Gimme a break. I'm advocating that experienced people look out for less experienced people to reduce incidents SUCH AS THIS ONE, and i've merely mentioned that maybe the lawsuit at hand will bring about some changes at other dropzones.

Many of you can use the veil of "self-responsibility" as your excuse for not helping others. I believe you are doing the sport at large a great disservice, but hey, thats my opinion.

And I personally consider a 100 jump jumper inexperienced, but hey, thats my opinion too.

Notice that I never said for people to be autonomous - I just suggested that people need to take a bit more interest in knowing what they are getting into, and should be less expectant of others.

Yes, passing knowledge on is good, but remind me, did the person who sparked this thread not get told to NOT jump up when exiting the 99 ?

how much of an idiot do you have to be to get to an open door, look outside and not see the tail hanging low ? Conversely, how much of an idiot do you have to be to not look out of the open door prior to exit ?

"artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"

Quote

Gimme a break. I'm advocating that experienced people look out for less experienced people to reduce incidents SUCH AS THIS ONE, and i've merely mentioned that maybe the lawsuit at hand will bring about some changes at other dropzones.

You may need to have you mommy hold your hand, but at 100 jumps, as much as we should all look out for each other, you are your own responsability.

Quote

how much of an idiot do you have to be to get to an open door, look outside and not see the tail hanging low ? Conversely, how much of an idiot do you have to be to not look out of the open door prior to exit ?

Appearently, not that much of an idiot if I assume some of the facts in this thread are true (i.e. numerous near collisions, lots of verbal warnings, no one mentioning to the jumper at exit that he was in danger) - and I apologize if I incorrectly addressed your earlier point.

Skydiving has a tremendous learning curve and is rife with danger. Some people are great at looking after other members and helping them scale the curve, but many (that I've come across) are not. They rush people out of the plane, get frustrated when you ask for a buddy check, etc. This latter group increases the risks of the sport for the younger participants. Yeah the kid may have been told - but he likely wasn't told contemporaneous with his exit from the plane, and he probably could have been told if someone gave a damn (speculation).

Quote

Quote

how much of an idiot do you have to be to get to an open door, look outside and not see the tail hanging low ? Conversely, how much of an idiot do you have to be to not look out of the open door prior to exit ?

Appearently, not that much of an idiot if I assume some of the facts in this thread are true (i.e. numerous near collisions, lots of verbal warnings, no one mentioning to the jumper at exit that he was in danger) - and I apologize if I incorrectly addressed your earlier point.

Skydiving has a tremendous learning curve and is rife with danger. Some people are great at looking after other members and helping them scale the curve, but many (that I've come across) are not. They rush people out of the plane, get frustrated when you ask for a buddy check, etc. This latter group increases the risks of the sport for the younger participants. Yeah the kid may have been told - but he likely wasn't told contemporaneous with his exit from the plane, and he probably could have been told if someone gave a damn (speculation).

How many times must he be told? He WAS told numberous times NOT to jump up, both the day before the incident and the day of according to previous posts

Quote

Quote

Appearently, not that much of an idiot if I assume some of the facts in this thread are true (i.e. numerous near collisions, lots of verbal warnings, no one mentioning to the jumper at exit that he was in danger) - and I apologize if I incorrectly addressed your earlier point.

According to the thread he was in fact warned of the dangers many times even though he should have been competant to know it already.

Quote

Some people are great at looking after other members and helping them scale the curve, but many (that I've come across) are not. They rush people out of the plane, get frustrated when you ask for a buddy check, etc.

If your jump buddies act this way then you need new ones.

I believe one time right before exit (or even a sign by the door indicating "DO NOT JUMP ON EXIT - LOW TAIL") would have sufficed.

Quote

no one mentioning to the jumper at exit that he was in danger

you fail again here sir. AND again, I ask you STOP theorizing on an incident you very clearly haven't the first clue about!

Skydiving has a tremendous learning curve and is rife with danger.

TRUE!!!

Yeah the kid may have been told - but he likely wasn't told contemporaneous with his exit from the plane, and he probably could have been told if someone gave a damn (speculation).

Twice in the same post? really? Dude, he was told/instructed/taught/some other form of being shown how to do something the right way... A LOT. Most likely right before he exited in addition to on the ground based on typical operations in Lodi. I can deduce this from the incident reports as well as what people WHO WERE THERE have said/posted. I'll be g*d d*mned if you aid in somehow burning this DZ with your inaccurate nerd-speak, lack of experience on the matter, and irrelevant hypotheses.

Go away please

Quote

I believe one time right before exit (or even a sign by the door indicating "DO NOT JUMP ON EXIT - LOW TAIL") would have sufficed.

By the same logic "Caution - VERY HOT" signs on coffee cups would make people stop getting burnt with the drink. Instead they just prevent liability lawsuits.

Quote

I believe one time right before exit (or even a sign by the door indicating "DO NOT JUMP ON EXIT - LOW TAIL") would have sufficed.

So telling him numerous times prior was not sufficient?

He's an adult. He was told the proper way to exit and why. He ignored that advice. His fault. If he couln't follow instructions or was uncomfortable with it, he should have not jumped. People need to take repsonsiblity for their actions and stop trying to blame everything on everyone else.

Quote

He's an adult. He was told the proper way to exit and why. He ignored that advice. His fault. If he couln't follow instructions or was uncomfortable with it, he should have not jumped.

I doubt he ignored it, he probably failed to realize the instruction at the time he exited the plane. I would consider this both a teaching failure and a learning failure.

As you are USPA Coach and Tandem Instructor, I'm surprised that you would come to such a stern conclusion as to summarily conclude "His fault." Then again, perhaps I'm not that surprised after all.

Quote

I believe one time right before exit (or even a sign by the door indicating "DO NOT JUMP ON EXIT - LOW TAIL") would have sufficed.

If this would have been a low pull incident would it have made the other people on the plane liable for not telling him to pull right before exit?

Quote

I would consider this both a teaching failure and a learning failure.

Even if one concedes both of those things (though I'd say it was most likely only the latter), it doesn't absolve him of personal responsibility. And yet, that's what we have here - he's blaming everyone but himself.

I realize you have only 50-some jumps, but if you can't handle the fact that every time you get on an airplane with the intent of jumping out of it you have to take responsibility for everything you do, perhaps this isn't the sport for you. Christian Barton apparently couldn't handle that fact, that's why he's suing Bill Dause and others.

Had I been on that plane with him, I would have been angry at him for endangering not only his life, but mine, and the rest of the folks on that plane. However, if he took out the tail and the plane became uncontrollable and crashed, I wouldn't be suing him, or Bill, or anyone. I chose to get on the plane with the full knowledge that someone else's fuckup might injure or kill me, even if I do everything right. Of course we're going to do all we can to prevent that from happening - and apparently lots of people tried to get Barton to fix his exits so that he didn't put the whole plane in danger. But still, fuckups happen for a variety fo reasons. You don't like that - don't get on the plane in the first place.

You bring up a good point. I wonder what our resident 50 jump lawyer would think of a counter suit from Bill against the jumper for damaging his aircraft as well as endangering the other jumpers on the load?

Quote

You bring up a good point. I wonder what our resident 50 jump lawyer would think of a counter suit from Bill against the jumper for damaging his aircraft as well as endangering the other jumpers on the load?

Well - that would be fact specific. If he had hit in this instance, I would hope that he would share liability for the property damage, just like (again speculation if certain above facts were true) the DZ would share liability for his injuries. Hell, those could net out possibly with a net liability of jumper to DZ, I dunno.

I'm not pro jumper, or pro DZ. All I'm saying is their are aspects of the sport that I consider to be problematic, clearly some of you don't feel that way, but I bet some do. The main aspect being this "every man for himself" attitude that occasionally fails to teach proper skills to participants.

To the poster before - if he had hit and knocked off the tail, I bet you would have died - and you better beleive that the trustee/administrator of your estate would have brought a lawsuit against the DZ.

In my opinion you illustrate how too many lawyers have really screwed up this country.
I disagree with your take on this incident.

Quote

Quote

He's an adult. He was told the proper way to exit and why. He ignored that advice. His fault. If he couln't follow instructions or was uncomfortable with it, he should have not jumped.

I doubt he ignored it, he probably failed to realize the instruction at the time he exited the plane. I would consider this both a teaching failure and a learning failure.

If he didn't understand the instruction that was given to him NUMBEROUS times then he should have asked instead of just nodding, saying okay or whatever it is that he did that led other people to believe he understood. Otherwise if they didn't think he understood the instruction I would hope they wouldn't have let him on the plane.

Yes I am an instructor. As such you have to realize that as much as you can teach someone, you cannot make them absorb the information and make them understand. They either do or they don't. All an instructor can do is recognize this and try again or ultimately decide to recommend another sport. This sport is NOT for everyone.