Texas teen survives skydive after parachute mishap in Chickasha

[GoOKC1991]

This has quickly become a big story around here

Texas teen survives skydive after parachute mishap in Chickasha

[gjl]

"Someone's going to take responsibility, and it's not gonna be that 16-year-old that's laying in a hospital bed," Joe said. He would not comment on what legal action his family might or might not take against the company."

Not sure what I think about this. No one forced her to jump out of that airplane.

[MWCGuy]

There are industry safety standards. Most skydiving schools/companies require x-amount of tandem jumps before being cut loose to go at it on your own. There is also the fact that commons sense should have played a roll in this Dad's decisions. Most logical minded parents are not going to let their child skydive or do just about any life threatening sport without some type of formal training and practical application. Long story short he will be lucky if he recieves enough money to pay the medical bills from the incident and the bills that will come as a result of her condition.

[kelroy55]

"Someone's going to take responsibility, and it's not gonna be that 16-year-old that's laying in a hospital bed," Joe said. He would not comment on what legal action his family might or might not take against the company."

Not sure what I think about this. No one forced her to jump out of that airplane.

That's a ludicrous statement to make. She had expectations that her chute was going to operate correctly and it's clear she wasn't the one to pack and inspect it. If this was due to negligence then legal action is needed.

[BBatesokc]

Ehhh, looks like bad planning on the part of the parents and a very risky business model on the part of the business owner.

All parents are different, but I didn't let my 16-year old 'make all the plans' when it came to anything that could potentially kill him. The whole reason they require parental permission is the assumption the parent will actually be providing some mature oversight.

Personally, I'd never jump as a new skydiver without a tandem partner (regardless of my age) - simply because I have no idea how I or my body will react. Blacking out, puking, panicking are all real possibilities.

As the business owner, allowing 16-year old and non-tandem first jumps is most likely a sign of the owner's greed to offer something the others don't in a reckless attempt to make more money. That business model comes with risk and I can see scenarios where this bites him in the financial butt.

[gjl]

That's a ludicrous statement to make. She had expectations that her chute was going to operate correctly and it's clear she wasn't the one to pack and inspect it. If this was due to negligence then legal action is needed.

Cab you not just state your opinion without first attacking me?

[Just the facts]

After reading that article there is something fundamentally wrong with those parents (and I use the term 'parents' in strict biological definition).

[Richard at Remax]

seems like there is blame on both sides. but the good thing for all is the girl survived what seems to be an amazing set of circumstances.

[kelroy55]

Cab you not just state your opinion without first attacking me?

I didn't attack you, I attacked your statement and my opinion is your statement is ludicrous.

[rezman]

I would think that the parents would have had to sign some kind of release before the girl jumped. Especially since she is a minor.

[gjl]

I didn't attack you, I attacked your statement and my opinion is your statement is ludicrous.

So your answer is no.

[gjl]

I would think that the parents would have had to sign some kind of release before the girl jumped. Especially since she is a minor.

The article said her parents signed releases.

[Snowman]

"Someone's going to take responsibility, and it's not gonna be that 16-year-old that's laying in a hospital bed," Joe said. He would not comment on what legal action his family might or might not take against the company."

Not sure what I think about this. No one forced her to jump out of that airplane.

Something to think about before sighting the waiver to pretty much any legal right to sue.

[Garin]

I went to that place with a large group of newbies about 20 years ago.... After sitting through the jump class. I talked myself out of jumping with or without and instructor. The landing zone at that place was just down right scary. You have huge power lines on one side and a heavy treed and bob-wired fence on the opposite side that you have to come in between. At the time they only required one tandem jump before you could do it on your own. Saturday they all did the tandem jump , then Sunday we went back down and a few of them did the single , a couple of the guys decided to not do the single. The two that did one went off without a hitch, the other literally had to lift his feet up to miss the power lines then ended up panicking and came in hot landing with the wind which pushed him through the bob-wire. It ripped damn near all of his clothes off ,cut up and bruised we thought he was dead cause he didn't move a muscle for it seemed like forever until we got over to him. It was quite a scary experience to say the least, after that we all decided there was no sense in ever jumping out of a perfectly good airplane again.

[Just the facts]

When you make death an option, sometimes death is the outcome. Like in poker, the only way to go all-out is to go all-in.

[CuatrodeMayo]

A friend of mine jumps (or used to jump) regularly at this place. IIRC, the "solo" jump is actually a static line jump, so it is not nearly as risky as a true solo jump.

Static line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kelroy55]

So your answer is no.

My answer is in my opinion your statement is ludicrous.

[kevinpate]

This particular teen was a static line jump. While surprised that any first timer would not be a tandem jump, I would be confuzzled beyond comprehension if anyone permitted first timers to jump solo and be responsible for chute deployment. That would seem akin to playing russian roulette with five shells in.

[BBatesokc]

Something to think about before sighting the waiver to pretty much any legal right to sue.

People think waivers mean you can't sue - not true at all (especially in Oklahoma). You cannot avoid liability through a waiver if it can be shown you were negligent and negligence if often a debatable topic (meaning, you're going to court).

[rezman]

The article said her parents signed releases.

It doesn't say anything about signing a release. Just about signing a permission form. By release, I mean a form relieving the company of any liability should something go wrong. In other words, "Jump At Your Own Risk".

The parents are fully responsible for their minor daughter, and been very clear on how many hours of training there is to be, and if it was to be a tandem jump or a solo jump, etc.

[BBatesokc]

It doesn't say anything about signing a release. Just about signing a permission form. By release, I mean a form relieving the company of any liability should something go wrong. In other words, "Jump At Your Own Risk".

The parents are fully responsible for their minor daughter, and been very clear on how many hours of training there is to be, and if it was to be a tandem jump or a solo jump, etc.

As I said above, signing a release doesn't mean much once lawyers get involved. Find one shred of negligence and the waiver goes out the window.

[kevinpate]

Actually, the far greater odds are that, like so many, many cases, the matter will get settled within policy limits, sans any assignment of liability in any direction. The docs and other med vendors will get paid at some level o their billings, the attorney and case costs will get paid, and the amount remaining for the minor, assuming a settlement before the teen reaches 18, will be tucked away into a restricted account at the conclusion of what's called a friendly suit. This concludes with a judge saying grace over who gets paid what, how much the minor gets tucked away, an explanation of the hurdles to reach any of the minor's funds prior to age 18, and a dismissal of the action.

Won't necessarily end that way of course, but when a minor is involved, if this were a betting event, the smart money would be to bet on this outcome the vast majority of the time.

[BBatesokc]

I agree - which is why I think this was a risky business model for the owner. A payout by his insurance - even without admitting liability is going to be costly as far a coverage going forward.

[rezman]

As I said above, signing a release doesn't mean much once lawyers get involved. Find one shred of negligence and the waiver goes out the window.

You can file a suit for anything. Bates, you can sue me for being ugly, and you may be right, but that doesn't mean you'd win.

.

[BBatesokc]

You can file a suit for anything. Bates, you can sue me for being ugly, and you may be right, but that doesn't mean you'd win.

.

That has ZERO to do with the topic. I guess in that scenario I could sue you for being clueless about the law...... but..... In this case, we are talking about being shielded from a lawsuit/liability/judgement due to a waiver. I simply pointed out that the waiver is meaningless if any negligence can be found.

The simple fact they are obviously going to allege negligence means its going to get expensive fast to try and defend the lawsuit (regardless of the precious waiver).

Oklahoma law does not allow a business to avoid liability simply because they have customers sign a waiver. Most personal injury and/or product liability lawyers will tell you a waiver is pretty useless other than to point out the obvious - what you're doing as a customer and offering as a business is dangerous.

I've used the example of the mechanical bulls that used to be in tons of bars. I use that example because I know a lawyer that won a couple of large verdicts and one settlement over those bulls. And in EVERY case the person hurt signed a waiver.