What are the risks, insurance cover wise, of taking a PAX up

[Morph]

This weekend we were talking about taking a PAX up in the plane and the risks we face i.t.o claims arising in the event of an unfortunate incident that could maim or kill.

What is the situation with taking PAX's up, what sort of Indemnity can we put in place, what sort of insurance would we need etc.

My opinion is that the PAX is going up at their own risk, but how do you notify them of this and how do you protect yourself/your family from being sued to death if something should happen.

[C205]

Definitely have them sign an indemnity form. This should be quite clear that they're doing it at their own risk. Perhaps a legal eagle could give us a suggested wording? At our club everyone (including parents of children under 21) has to fill out an indemnity.

[Morph]

Hey C205,

long time no speak,

Could you email me or fax me 021 551 9415, a copy of the indemnity so I can have a look at it

[C205]

Hi there,
:D
Don't have the exact wording at the office. Will have to get that first, but will do.

[Morph]

I'll see if I can find it. I'd like to get the insurance guys on here to look at it and comment as to it's legality. It's useless getting PAX's signing papers that actually do not work.

I know of instances in the past where an indemnity is signed and yet the case still goes to court and the parties are charged. A case in point was here at Canal Walk they had a indoors race track. Everyone signs indemnities. One day, a young girl got her hair caught in the fan belt and part of her scalp was ripped off.

The company ended up closing down, huge court cases were fought and if I remember eventually they company had to pay out even though there were indemnities.

[C205]

I cannot go into much detail here but we have had an experience at the skydiving club three years after an injury occurred. The case was withdrawn by the complainant at the last minute.
We had the backing of the national controlling body (Parachute Association of South Africa - PASA).
The signed indemnity was certainly an important factor. Also the club was subsequently advised to put up several notices around the club to say that skydiving is a dangerous activity and participation therein could lead to injury etc etc...
One of the points raised was that simply by getting involved in a 'dangerous activity' you accept the accompanying risks.

[Tumbleweed]

Can we place a link to the other insurance thread and have our new independant guru respond?

C205, would be interesting to know if the claimant handled direct or if his insurerers, once settling his ( reduced) claim, tried (supposedly on his behalf) to re-cuperate from their pay- out.

It would also be interesting to know on what specific basis they based their claim on i.e. direct negligence by operators, incompetance by under-skilled operators, safety procedure not being strictly adhered to e.t.c.

I think that simply sueing just because there was an accident and they were'nt sure that it was dangerous will not hold up.

That's like me suing Camel for my V8 chest rumble in the mornings.

Also would like to know whether there is a difference in liability between a paid operator and a free flip.

[IFLYHI]

Got this of this forum some time ago




This indemnity was made this ______ day of ______________ (month) ________(year) between the Interested Party or any other person (hereinafter referred to as the Student) and La Mercy Flight Park and/or their officers, directors, agents, members and employees (hereinafter referred to as La Mercy Flight Park).

The Student hereby indemnifies and holds harmless La Mercy Flight Park against any claim involving damage to any equipment or property and/or injury or loss of life to the student or any third parties arising out of the operation of a Microlight or Equipment, whether such damage, injury or loss is attributable to the misrepresentation, negligence or otherwise of La Mercy Flight Park and whether due to any latent or patent defect in the Microlight or equipment itself or part thereof.

The Student further indemnifies and holds harmless La Mercy Flight Park involved with his or her training, casual or any other flight.

The Student further indemnifies and holds harmless La Mercy Flight Park from any and all damage or injuries to the person or property of any individual or entity which may arise out of the Student’s operation or attempted operating of any Microlight Aircraft and equipment

The student is aware that there are life-threatening hazards associated with the experience about to be undertaken, and undertakes to complete this lesson at the student’s own risk. This indemnity covers all possible risks/ hazards that may be encountered.

This indemnity further indemnifies, La Mercy Flight Park’s landlord, the Airports Company of South Africa Ltd. ,its directors, agents, members and employees.

The Students is fully aware that there is no liability-, medical- or any other insurance which may benefit the student in the event of an incident, accident and /or loss.


___________________________________ ___________________________________________
Signature - Student Signature of Parent of Guardian if under the age of 21


___________________________________ ___________________________________________
Witness 1: Witness 2:


Who do I credit FF

[Junkie]

I think id like to get this formalised in the WCMC and also have some signs made to put up at MS and any other field that can be prominently displayed.
Each and everyone then should have some forms on them and get their pax to sign, kids especially tricky so I guess their parents must sign on their behalf and be given option to back out, preferably in front of witnesses

[C205]

Without going into much detail. The claim was for negligence (if I remember correctly- it was a couple of years ago). The girl had a malfunction of her main canopy on her third or fourth jump and failed to follow procedures. The case was against the jump master and the club.
No settlement was paid and each party covered their own expense at the end.
No insurance company was involved. The woman's father laid the claim directly.

[skybound®]

Indemnities are great - but afraid they are limited in their use. But yes, better than nothing.

Problems are you can still be sued for negligence, the indemnity in this instance is useless. Would guess that extends to if they can prove you broke the regs in any way too - for instance not following the correct joining procedure at an unmanned airfield. It is up to the plaintiff to prove the negligence.

Also if the passenger dies, his estate can still sue you. As an individual, you may not sign the rights of your estate away no matter how you word your indemnity. It is simply unlawfull and no written document can allow you to act unlawfully.

[Biggles]

I have worked in several dangerous environments where visitors had to sign indemnities. And then we had some high powered lawyer visit that specialised in such issues. He told us that essentially the indemnity is just to inform a person that they are entering a potentially dangerous environent but should that person come to harm due to neglegence on our part then the indemnity is not worth diddly.

[Tailspin]

As far as i understand the Indemnity can only really work if the Pax cannot prove there was neglegance on the part of the pilot. If the Pax can prove neglegance then the Pilot has nothing to stand on. But i do prefer to let the pax sign an indemnity whenever i fly as P.I.C. as i just feel if he decides to loosen the belt and lean out too far it ain't my problem they gonna scrape him off the tarmac with a brush and scoopie.

[Junkie]

or an Electorlux and Mr Min....

[Tailspin]

Also known as a SPLAT ATTACK