Women File Lawsuit Over Fatal Balloon Accident

October 30, 2007

  • October 30, 2007 at 1:41 am
    Yikes! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So, I imagine that Fiesta had them sign a relelase saying that they were about to engage in a dangerous and perhaps deadly event. If that’s the case, is there a case?

  • October 30, 2007 at 1:48 am
    Hot Air says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The real problem here is that someone actually wanted to ride with a company called “Rainbow Ryders.”

  • October 30, 2007 at 2:30 am
    James Suxalot says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s what we in the “legal” profession call Contingency payday!! Can I get an Amen!!

  • October 30, 2007 at 2:58 am
    Ohioan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Amen and amen. Yikes raises a valid point on the waiver. I would think someone would have to establish gross neglect or wanton and willful disregard for safety to overcome a decent waiver. I guess she didn’t flap her arms quite fast enough to make a graceful landing.

  • October 30, 2007 at 3:14 am
    clm mgr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    One of the most salient points to be made in opposition to such waivers is the comparative exercise of control over the device that caused the injuries. For instance, a horse riding enterprise waiver is upheld because the horse is not a piece of equipment under the absolute control of the operator of the enterprise…the rider exercises substantial control over the horse and the horse itself has emotions, fears, opinions about how it wants to be ridden, and therefore it is beyond the enterprise renting the horse to guarantee anyones’ safety while riding. Not so with a hot air balloon. The pilot is supposedly trained to deal with any sort of weather or other condition applicable to his balloon at any given time, and has a duty to ensure that his balloon does not come into contact with any other objects such as power lines or other obstructions. In addition, no other passenger has any control over the flight of the balloon…the pilot is in complete control over the balloon insofar as weather conditions and other prevailing conditions are concerned. This one will likely go to the plaintiffs.

  • October 30, 2007 at 3:29 am
    James Suxalot says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In addition to the excellent points made by clm mgr, a waiver has no binding authority on husbands, children and others who are free to make claims for damages ranging from loss of consortium to lost wages, assuming she may have had a job. Word to the wise: Dead men (and women) don’t make claims…their relatives, however, usually do.

  • October 30, 2007 at 3:51 am
    John R. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Clms. Mgr. – while you’re probably correct about this one going south, the point of the pilot have “complete control” is relative. Nobody controls the wind and it is commonly known that wind impacts hot air balloons. As such, there’s no negligence if a gust of wind blows a balloon off course during ascent. The negligence will probably come in with the site selection for the launch.

  • October 30, 2007 at 4:25 am
    clm mgr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    John R.: How wrong can you be? In a situation where the balloon is loaded with people who know nothing about ballooning and in which the pilot is going to be portrayed to the jury as a trained expert not only in driving the balloon, but in observing weather phenomena, navigating wind currents, and all the myriad other attributes necessary to flying a balloon, the duty of the pilot is nondelegable. If there is an errant wind gust, he should have known through weather reports or other observations that such conditions existed and either flown accordingly or not flown at all.

    This one still goes to the plaintiffs.

  • October 30, 2007 at 5:21 am
    V I P says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree that this one will go to the plaintiffs, for the reasons already mentioned, but no one yet also pointed out that while the collision with the utility line started the chain of events, it was actually the failed attempt to free the balloon (tether broke) that threw the one passenger to the ground, and was in the chain of events prior to the crash – had they successfully tethered it, it wouldn’t have crashed? – so I would think the primary allegations would be failure to inspect the equipment (tether), using faulty equipment, and negligent operation of it, as that may have contributed to its failure.

  • October 31, 2007 at 10:19 am
    Nan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    One might ask why people are asked to sign a waiver for things like bungee jumping, sky diving, or hot air balloons? Could it be because they carry an inherent risk? What about assumption of risk? Nothing in life comes with a 100% guarantee of safety. Here you have a 60 year old woman who gets ejected from a gondola during an attempt to free the balloon from the overhead wires. Wouldn’t a reasonable, prudent, mature adult make every effort to get into a “safe” position during that exercise? Why was she the only one who fell out?

    This was apparently an experienced balloon pilot. There is no suggestion of gross neglect or indifference for safety. I don’t think this is a slam dunk by any stretch. The suggestion that the pilot should be responsible every weather/wind related contingency is absurd. Making “black and white” distinctions in liability situations is irresponsible. That’s like blaming a commercial airline pilot for a crash caused by “wind shear”. This was a tragic accident that just may not be anyone’s fault.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*