[Rick Masters]

I don't think people realize that self-insurance for an organization so poor that it has to struggle to reach the minimum reserve threshold simply isn't going to work.
It works fine if you have billions. It can be made to work if you have tens of millions.
But if you only have two million dollars, that pot of money has to be held in reserve simply for the self-insurance entity to exist.
You can't draw from it. The government will come after you for insufficient reserves and shut you down.
Any claims must be drawn from additional funds on top of that baseline. All payments and expenses must be drawn from additional funds.
Jean Lake may well seal the fate of the USHPA. ALL that money held in reserve could be lost IN ONE LAWSUIT.
No more USHPA.
Joyriding was serious exposure for a small membership organization. It should be far beyond anything the US Hawks would consider.
Frank, I think, understands the implications of this. I'm not sure if anyone else does.
What it means, is we US Hawks have to form as a solo free-flight hang gliding organization with absolutely minimum liability exposure.
No baggage. No tandem. No joyrides. No parachuting. No competitions. No insured sites. No towing.
We are about to watch the USHPA go down the tubes.
We all know they're not going to give up anything.
What will remain is the US Hawks.
We could be the last man standing.
That's sad. But it's very, very important.

[dhmartens]

http://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cg ... ntext=cwlr

over 30 pages California western law review about BMX bicycle sport in CA sounds like exactly the same issues HG/PG face.
Landowners worried, court precedence, coach liability etc.

In Branco v. Kearny Moto Park,96 a California Court of Appeal
set precedent that has chilled the progression of BMX course design
and has effectively limited the availability of BMX facilities by
imposing unnecessary liability. In Branco, a seventeen-year-old
novice BMX rider was seriously injured while practicing at his local
BMX track; plaintiff Branco crashed while attempting to ride over a
"double jump."97 To determine whether primary assumption of risk
barred Branco's claim, the court broadly ruled that jumps and falls are
inherent risks in BMX, and that a BMX course has "no duty to protect
from injury arising from reasonably designed jumps." 98 The court then
examined whether the track's operator negligently increased those
inherent risks by constructing an unreasonable jump.99

I am looking to see how Europe handles landowner liability, I think they have a better law.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Good find!!

C. Scope of Limited Duty

Once the court has determined a sport's inherent risks, the scope of the defendant's limited duty not to increase the sport's inherent risks will vary depending on the defendant's relationship to the sport.so Thus, different duties of care will be placed upon defendants based on their role in the sport. The California Supreme Court has provided guidance for three different classifications of defendants in sports-related lawsuits: (1) co-participants," (2) coaches, and (3) facility providers.

1. Co-Participants

Co-participants are shielded from simple negligence actions. Negligence among co-participants has consistently been deemed an inherent risk of sports, regardless of the type of sport-active or not- and regardless of the level at which the participants were playing (i.e., casual, amateur, or professional). Instead, co-participants will only breach a "legal duty owed to other participants . . . if the participant intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport." This limited duty of care is driven purely by public policy, which seeks to avoid altering the fundamental nature of sports, discouraging vigorous participation, or "sapping" the thrill of sports.

2. Coaches

Similar to co-participants, sports coaches only incur liability to their students if they intentionally cause injury, or engage in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary coaching activity involved in the sport. Again, public policy justifies a relaxed standard of care because of participants' need for instruction when learning how to participate or advance their skill levels. Attaching liability to coaches for simple negligent acts may "inhibit adequate instruction and learning or eventually alter the nature of [a] sport." Coaches' liability for simple negligence would expose them to potentially limitless liability to students who feel they were pushed beyond their boundaries at the time they were injured.

3. Sports Facility Providers

Sports facility providers do not benefit from the relaxed standards of care that co-participants and coaches owe to participants. While sports facility providers incur no liability for injuries that result from a sport's inherent risks, providers generally must not negligently increase a sport's inherent risks by providing unreasonably unsafe facilities. In fact, "recent trends in the law recognize duties on the part of the operators of sports facilities to ensure participant safety."

[Frank Colver]

I knew the owner of Escape Country when it was a combination motorcycle park and hang gliding park. They did charge an entry fee so that definitely increased their liability. He eventually closed because of the frequent lawsuits. He won all of those suits as far as I knew at the time, but the monetary cost and time of defense is what drove E.C. down financially.

Frank C.

[Rick Masters]

Jean Lake may well seal the fate of the USHPA. ALL that money held in reserve could be lost IN ONE LAWSUIT.
No more USHPA.
Joyriding was serious exposure for a small membership organization.

I would like to see an analysis done on the USHPA BOD to see who has profited from joyriding.
I was shocked to see a video of one of them openly violating FAR 103 in Hawaii on a PPG.
Who else is bringing down the sport of hang gliding by falsely claiming to represent it?
The worst offenders often hide behind the loudest voices.

[SamKellner]

Right on Rick

I would like to see an analysis done on the USHPA BOD to see who has profited from joyriding

.

If you go to Groupon, click on hang/paraglide........... that might be one way