[Craig Muhonen]

From https://tluvirtual.com/event/firtat-v-p ... -russ-gold

Moderator's Note: The names "Funar" and "Pavlik" in this article may be fictitious.

Funar v. Pavlik – $7.44M Verdict for a Mid-Air Paraglider Collision – Dave Fox & Russ Gold
Webinar on April 8 @ 10:30 AM - 1:30 PM PDT

This case involved a mid-air paraglider collision. Defendant Peter Pavlik, flying above and behind plaintiff Alex Funar, crashed into the rear edge of Funar’s paraglider wing. Funar’s wing collapsed and he fell approximately 100 feet to the mountainside below. Funar suffered a severe spinal fracture requiring a 4-level spinal fusion.

All paragliders must sign a broad waiver agreeing not to sue other paragliders and assuming all risks of injury while participating in the sport. Therefore, Funar had to prove that Pavlik’s conduct was (1) grossly negligent to avoid the waiver, and (2) so reckless it was entirely outside the range of ordinary activity involved in paragliding. Pavlik contended that Funar was in Pavlik’s blind spot and Funar should have been more aware of Pavlik’s location. Therefore, according to Pavlik, the collision was an unfortunate accident that did not give rise to liability, and Funar was also at fault for failing to “see and avoid” Pavlik.

Before reaching trial, Funar prevailed on Pavlik’s motion for summary judgment based on federal pre-emption, waiver, and primary assumption of risk. Then Funar prevailed on Pavlik’s petition to the Court of Appeal seeking a peremptory writ of mandate.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Pavlik grossly negligent and reckless without any comparative fault by Funar. The jury decided total damages of $7,443,369.74, which included $1 million for past non-economic damages and $5 million for future non-economic damages. The judgment will exceed $9 million after CCP §998 costs and interest.

I suspect that this will bankrupt the "RRRG". And if Rick is correct, the existing USHPA membership might be on the hook for any shortfall. On October 2nd, 2017, Rick commented about Mike Jefferson being forced to purchase his own insurance:

In all seriousness, Mike should look at the bright side.
He escaped the liability all stock-bearing members of the RRG share.
For the cost of only $500, he gets total protection against any massive lawsuit or regulatory action that could destroy the RRG and leave its members liable for astronomical costs for many years to come.
A class action lawsuit based on the omission of certain facts that resulted in multiple deaths of participants, for instance.
That is cheap protection.
In the future, other members may wish they had followed Mike's example before it was too late.
Members need not worry about the RRG Directors getting caught up in any of it, though.
They're most likely covered by a reinsurance policy the members paid for.
(They might have forgotten to say anything about it.)

Mike's action also exposes a big hole in the RRG story.
He got insured with another company.
That flies in the face of everything the USHPA was telling their gullible members about the end of free flight.
Actually, free flight is probably going to be around for a while longer.
I'm not so sure about the USHPA, RRG and the Federation of Free Paragliding Flight.

Of course, Mark Forbes always puts his own spin on everything:

Mgforbes
Re: RRRG Litigation?
Post Thu, Mar 10 2022, 05:51:35 pm

Mark Forbes here. I serve as CFO of Recreation RRG. I can't answer most of the questions that you're all about to clamor for answers to, so don't bother asking.

What you saw in the announcement from the RRG is what can be released at present. What you read from people like Hanning and Mcaleer is misinformed ranting. This litigation is a long way from being over, and meanwhile Recreation RRG continues to operate, insuring pilots, schools, chapters, landowners and USHPA.

The fundamental understanding within our sport must be the belief that we're all responsible for our own safety, and on ourselves alone falls the duty of care to stay safe. We all agree as a condition of USHPA membership that we will not sue or make a claim against landowners, pilots or anybody else if we get hurt. The plaintiff in this case broke his promise and sued. He found a judge and jury sympathetic to his argument that his promise should not be binding. If pilots feel that they can break their promise not to sue others, then it's difficult to see how insurance could remain viable even with a massive increase in premiums. That's just not sustainable. When members of our flying community actively encourage one pilot to sue another, or make public statements casting blame and calling for retribution, it damages us all.

The insurance policy now excludes claims between pilots, so a future mid-air collision would not be an insurable event. It also excludes claims for gross negligence, in addition to criminal negligence previously excluded. As we continue to gain experience, the insurance policies continue to be refined, expanding coverage where it's feasible, restricting it where unacceptable risk becomes evident.

Recreation RRG continues to operate normally, and I expect that a final resolution of this case is many months in the future. Claims are something that happens in the insurance business, and they don't generally rise to a level of concern within the pilot community. Perhaps once this is finally settled out and fully 'done', we can have an in-depth discussion about what happened and how it was handled. For right now, "I can't comment on pending litigation."

MGF

There are a number of misleading half-truths in Mark's post, but I'll start with this one:

"If pilots feel that they can break their promise not to sue others, then it's difficult to see how insurance could remain viable even with a massive increase in premiums. That's just not sustainable."

First of all, the law states that people can't sign away (or promise away) their right to sue when "gross negligence" has been exhibited by the offending party. If the RRRG has been depending on injured parties to both ignore and forgive even gross negligence, then it never was sustainable.

Also note that the RRRG will now be excluding gross negligence from coverage. In other words, if it is not gross negligence, then the signed agreement to not sue will stand (you can sign away your right to sue for ordinary negligence), but if it is gross negligence, then it won't be covered by the policy. So what good is the insurance? Wouldn't that be the same as having everyone sign an agreement to not sue and not bothering with the insurance at all?

The same is true of the recreational land use statutes. They already protect landowners, but USHPA tries to force us to buy their insurance as well. Yes, USHPA's RRRG scheme is indeed a scam.

=======================================================================================================

OUTFREEGN' OUTRAGEOS

Loss of Insurance.png (79.37 KiB) Viewed 386 times

frame 140 then frame 142.png (97.96 KiB) Viewed 386 times

Im a hang glider.png (173.62 KiB) Viewed 385 times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ehv41FXIk


==========================================================================================================
Kevan Smith, last standing Hang Glider Pilot in the modern Telluride Airforce, give him a call, he's lonely, but still flying Paradox.

TAF Guide Pilots.png (48.84 KiB) Viewed 386 times

==========================================================================================================

NO, I'M A HANG GLIDER

Clint Wolf TAF 1974.png (211.76 KiB) Viewed 386 times

===========================================================================================================
Ski Areas are dropping "foot launched" Hang Gliding and Paragliding from their slops, which means refusing 50 paragliders and 1 Hang Glider the right to fly there.
and in Telluride's case, a premier launch site in the world, and five years straight of unsanctioned world championship Acrobatic flying by Masters, in well crafted, airframed gliders.
This could be an opening for ski areas to put on "Hang Gliding" Air Shows and general flying, on a regular basis AGAIN, and cut USHPA access to their slops, forever! and expose ushpa's utter disrespect for pilots of airframed flexible wings, and a marketing campaign to disguise it.
You Should Happily Paraglide Away.

Bob knows what a big event this is for all Hang Glider Pilots to understand, we should all pitch in to get the word out. A new proposal is in order. Maybe a list of ski resort owners, where Hang Gliding has gone on safely for years, and "advertise" to them only. Paragliders do have other places to fly.
There is a big "suck" behind USHPA.
=====================================================================================================================

everything will lill you.jpg (40.69 KiB) Viewed 383 times

Concerned HO



.