How safe is it, really?

Happy Dog asks;

Does the waiver relate to the jump facility AND the manufacturer?

I jumped once, just to see what it was like. The first thing that they
do when you get to the jump facility (at least the one that I went to in
Maine), was tell you that it's real dangerous, and that you could get
killed. Then, they sat us down and showed us a 1/2 hour long movie of
parachuting accidents (real ones), with folks falling out of the sky,
hitting the ground, and dying. After that, they asked us to sign
waivers that said that no matter what happened, EVEN IF THE PILOT OF THE
JUMP PLANE CRASHED ON PURPOSE (and similar wording for just about every
other possibility) that we wouldn't sue anyone, and that we were
completely aware of all the dangers.

Obviously, we couldn't sign away anyone ELSE's right to sue, so I'm sure
that if I had been killed my wife would have approached a lawyer, but
the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL the
risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
purpose) means that she'd never win.

Anyway, the waivers I signed applied to everyone and anyone that had
ever been born, much less the facility and MFG.

It was an interesting experience :-).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
Obviously, we couldn't sign away anyone ELSE's right to sue, so I'm sure
that if I had been killed my wife would have approached a lawyer, but
the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL the
risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
purpose) means that she'd never win.

Wrong.

moo

the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL
the
risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
purpose) means that she'd never win.
Wrong.

Close enough. Nobody ever has won.

Michael

the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL
the
risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
purpose) means that she'd never win.
Wrong.

Close enough. Nobody ever has won.

Michael

On 3 Dec 2004 07:30:05 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

The last attempt I
heard about was against Relative Workshop. It was eventually settled
by the PLAINTIFF (the woman who got hurt) paying the DEFENDANT (the
manufacturer of the parachute system) for legal expenses.

Not in the U.S., I reckon?

This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
legal expenses. Very sensible.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
legal expenses. Very sensible.

Initially I thought so but there are several reasons why this may not always
be a good idea.

Think of this hypothetical case where Joe CFI gets hit by OJ and needs to
sue. Joe CFI shows up with his ACME attorney charging $300/ hr; which he
really cannot afford. But he truely was hit by OJ who was drunk and fleeing
a murder scene. Now OJ, guilty as can be, shows up with 6 attorneys all
charging $850/hr plus expenses.

Joe loses because the opposing council baffles the crap of of 12 unemployed
postal workers. Now Joe is injured and loses everything and must file
bankrupsy and he was only guilty of being on his way to church.

;-)

Of course it isn't working the way it is now either.

Carl

Cub Driver wrote:
The last attempt I
heard about was against Relative Workshop. It was eventually
settled
by the PLAINTIFF (the woman who got hurt) paying the DEFENDANT (the
manufacturer of the parachute system) for legal expenses.

Not in the U.S., I reckon?

You reckon wrong.

This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
legal expenses. Very sensible.

Nope. It was one of the terms of the waiver - that if you sue, or
anyone sues on your behalf, you agree to pay the costs of the defense.
Michael

In article .com, Michael
wrote:
Nope. It was one of the terms of the waiver - that if you sue, or
anyone sues on your behalf, you agree to pay the costs of the defense.

Ah, that does work then. I keep hearing people say "But you can't sign
away the rights of your relatives to sue" - sure you can't - but if the
waiver says "I hold harmless AND INDEMNIFY..." - that means if your
relatives do sue, your estate gets to pay anyway because you agreed to
indemnify.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:
Ah, that does work then. I keep hearing people say "But you can't
sign
away the rights of your relatives to sue" - sure you can't - but if
the
waiver says "I hold harmless AND INDEMNIFY..." - that means if your
relatives do sue, your estate gets to pay anyway because you agreed
to
indemnify.

Well, it CAN work. If you just say "and indemnify" then it very likely
may not, because the judge is likely to assume that the average person
doesn't know what this means. But if you spell it out in plain english
(american, really) as well, then the judge is likely to see it
differently.

This is one of the points discussed in Hulsey v. Elsinore. Really
worth reading - it gives great insight into how judges think, and the
decision is quite comprehensible to the layman.

Michael

On 2 Dec 2004 11:29:59 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

Anyone who flies a taildragger from the back seat knows you can't see
crap from there - but there are controls there anyway.

In the case of the J-3 Cub, the controls are there for a very good
reason: the airplane is or ought to be placarded "Solo From Rear Seat
Only".

As a matter of fact, I've never flown a J-3 from the front seat, but
I'm told that the viz up there is actually worse. (The big problem
flying from the rear seat is not what you see of the airfield or the
sky; it's what you don't see of the instruments with a passenger in
the front seat.)

I have flown a PA-18 Super Cub from the front, but the seat is higher,
since that is the expected pilot's location.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net