Lawsuits and Liability Waivers (x-post from red board)

[NotSure]

With all of the aviation lawsuits involving airplane crashes, i was wondering why doesnt one of our advocacy groups (like AOPA) spend some time and create an unbreakable liability waiver for accidents and death. Its done in other industries, why not aviation? I pose this question for both pilots and attorneys on the board. If it was as easy as every FBO and private plane operator requiring passengers to read a pamphlet detailing the risk and sign a waiver, wouldnt this pretty much end the lawsuits. I know id be willing to make my passengers sign such a document (of course my passengers would be given the document at altitude with the ultimatum of sign or get out )

So what say the group? Is it possible? Has it been tried?

 

[nosehair]

Don't quote me, but I think it has been tried but a liability waiver is only as good as your lawyer. Or theirs.

I think the view is that a "general public" person does not know what he/she is signing when it comes to matters in aviation.

 

[RogerT]

With all of the aviation lawsuits involving airplane crashes, i was wondering why doesnt one of our advocacy groups (like AOPA) spend some time and create an unbreakable liability waiver for accidents and death. Its done in other industries, why not aviation? I pose this question for both pilots and attorneys on the board. If it was as easy as every FBO and private plane operator requiring passengers to read a pamphlet detailing the risk and sign a waiver, wouldnt this pretty much end the lawsuits. I know id be willing to make my passengers sign such a document (of course my passengers would be given the document at altitude with the ultimatum of sign or get out )

So what say the group? Is it possible? Has it been tried?

Well I'd say you might have trouble having it withstand an action from the
relatives of the person who signed it since they weren't a party to the
agreement.

 

[AdamZ]

There is no such thing as an " Unbreakable" libabilty waiver.

Also Roger a person can waive the right to sue for his heirs to some extent depending upon the situation and state that you are in.

 

[ScottM]

unbreakable liability waiver for accidents and death.

No offense, but does not one have a better chance of finding a live unicorn?

For instance you may have the best liability reference ever written, but you jam that in front of some just as they are getting on the plane and they quick sign it without really reading nor having a chance to let a legal professional read it, then in that case it is easily negated by simple arguments.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

With all of the aviation lawsuits involving airplane crashes, i was wondering why doesnt one of our advocacy groups (like AOPA) spend some time and create an unbreakable liability waiver for accidents and death. Its done in other industries, why not aviation? I pose this question for both pilots and attorneys on the board. If it was as easy as every FBO and private plane operator requiring passengers to read a pamphlet detailing the risk and sign a waiver, wouldnt this pretty much end the lawsuits. I know id be willing to make my passengers sign such a document (of course my passengers would be given the document at altitude with the ultimatum of sign or get out )

So what say the group? Is it possible? Has it been tried?

The problem is that there's no such thing as an unbreakable liability waiver.

There are certain things that can be waived, but there are a whole bunch things that can't. Unfortunately, a lot of the stuff that causes aviation accidents involve things that can't be waived.

 

[sky1949]

I won't go so far as to say there is no such thing as an absolutely unbreakable liability waiver, but in my 35 years of legal practice I've never seen one. That's not to say that there aren't circumstances where a waiver is unbreakable, but on another occasion it is breakable. It is basically unreasonable to expect that someone can basically get a "get out of jail free card" in advance to absolve him of his own negligence, so he has free license go out and do dangerous things knowingly. Should a private pilot be able to get a waiver from his unsuspecting guests, overload, then decide to fly into known severe icing in his 172? If the activity is very dangerous, and made abundantly clear, a waiver might be possible against known risks. However, to be truly unbreakable, the guest should be given plenty of time and the opportunity to consult a lawyer. Also, it should be negotiated, rather than given as a take it or leave it at the last minute or by someone who has a superior bargaining power or refuses to bargain at all (known as a "contract of adhesion" in legal parlance, and generally not enforceable). Even all this may not work. Bottom line, don't try to pass off your own negligence on the victims of your carelessness.

 

[alaskaflyer]

As Adam notes there are only limited opportunities for YOU to bind your heirs to some action or inaction, at least in this country.

Just because I sign some waiver doesn't mean that others who might be depending on my income or companionship are bound to that waiver. They didn't sign it.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I won't go so far as to say there is no such thing as an absolutely unbreakable liability waiver, but in my 35 years of legal practice I've never seen one. That's not to say that there aren't circumstances where a waiver is unbreakable, but on another occasion it is breakable. It is basically unreasonable to expect that someone can basically get a "get out of jail free card" in advance to absolve him of his own negligence, so he has free license go out and do dangerous things knowingly. Should a private pilot be able to get a waiver from his unsuspecting guests, overload, then decide to fly into known severe icing in his 172? If the activity is very dangerous, and made abundantly clear, a waiver might be possible against known risks. However, to be truly unbreakable, the guest should be given plenty of time and the opportunity to consult a lawyer. Also, it should be negotiated, rather than given as a take it or leave it at the last minute or by someone who has a superior bargaining power or refuses to bargain at all (known as a "contract of adhesion" in legal parlance, and generally not enforceable). Even all this may not work. Bottom line, don't try to pass off your own negligence on the victims of your carelessness.

Those are all great points, that I think would be absolutely necessary to get as bulletproof a waiver as possible. The problem I see with an absolutely unbreakable one, though, is that aviation is filled with rules, and if you break one of the rules - which seems to happen pretty frequently - you've just set up the perfect negligence per se claim. A "NPS" claim can't be disclaimed contractually (unless there's a state out there that actually does allow it, but I'm not aware of any), because you can't contractually disclaim a duty that is imposed as a matter of public policy. By definition, a governmental rule is something of public policy.

For those that don't know, NPS arises whenever you violate a rule meant to protect someone else, and that someone else gets hurt as a result. It applies to something like an accident resulting from a DUI.

I just think that, without regard to all of the other roadblocks, this particular one is simply insurmountable.

Any thoughts?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

As Adam notes there are only limited opportunities for YOU to bind your heirs to some action or inaction, at least in this country.

Just because I sign some waiver doesn't mean that others who might be depending on my income or companionship are bound to that waiver. They didn't sign it.

Off the top of my head, I think this would really depend on the jurisdiction you're in. In cases of death, there are generally two legal theories that you can proceed under; some states allow one and not the other.

Under one kind of theory, called "survivorship," the action is "derivative" of the deceased. The plaintiff, frequently the estate, stands in the shoes of the deceased - meaning that the plaintiff is bound by whatever the deceased did. That would include things like valid waivers of liability. Think of a survivorship action as being for the pain and suffering, and loss of life, caused to the deceased.

Under the other kind of theory, called "wrongful death," the cause of action is independent from the deceased. It belongs to the plaintiff, who might be a wife, child, parent, etc. It's a wrong, independent from the wrong done to the deceased, that's done to whoever those people are. These folks aren't bound by things like liability waivers (they're not parties to the contract). Think of the wrongful death action as being for things like lost income, lost companionship, etc., done to those still living.

Some states don't allow one or the other. Some allow both.

And that, of course, brings up a whole 'nother issue - what if the flight is in Colorado, but the deceased is from Kansas? Whose law would govern say, a wrongful death action? While the death would have been in CO, the injury would have occurred in Kansas - that's where something like a loss of income would be felt. What if Colorado recognizes waivers of liability for aviation accidents, but Kansas doesn't? Would a suit against the airplane company in Kansas (let's assume the company does business in KS) succeed? Would it get thrown out of court?

There are some really complex legal issues when you start getting into these things.

My point - if you're doing something risky that people with high incomes enjoy, a good insurance policy with high limits is worth far more than some contractual waiver is. A good attorney can poke so many holes in a waiver that I personally feel you're taking a big chance if you're relying on one to protect you.

 

[JeffDG]

My point - if you're doing something risky that people with high incomes enjoy, a good insurance policy with high limits is worth far more than some contractual waiver is. A good attorney can poke so many holes in a waiver that I personally feel you're taking a big chance if you're relying on one to protect you.

Alternatively, make sure you have zero assets...spend all your money on things like AvGas that retain no residual value!

The critical point is to make it more expensive for the guy's family to sue you than they have any hope of ever recovering!!!!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Alternatively, make sure you have zero assets...spend all your money on things like AvGas that retain no residual value!

The critical point is to make it more expensive for the guy's family to sue you than they have any hope of ever recovering!!!!

Hence the existence of holding corps.... Judgmentproofabunga.

 

[NotSure]

Alternatively, make sure you have zero assets...spend all your money on things like AvGas that retain no residual value!

The critical point is to make it more expensive for the guy's family to sue you than they have any hope of ever recovering!!!!

I think i just found my new plan

 

[alaskaflyer]

Just don't crash. Novel, I know.

 

[weilke]

The legal columnist in the AOPA journal cited and reported on a case where an aviation related waiver was upheld. I believe it revolved around formation flying. Some of the elements that made it stick involved the fact that the pilot who signed the waiver (holding the other pilots and the aerobatic association harmless) had the opportunity to sign this in the comfort of his home and avail himself of legal advice.

 

[Steve Foley]

Just don't crash. Novel, I know.

That practice didn't help the guy with the landing gear malfunction in Chicago. He was out over the lake trying to resolve the issue while two planes had a mid-air. He was successfully sued for several million dollars for monopolizing the controller's attention, so she was too busy to remind the two VFR pilots to see-and-avoid.

 

[Dr. O]

Steve, do you have a web site for that case? I would like to read it...

denny-o

 

[Steve Foley]

Steve, do you have a web site for that case? I would like to read it...

denny-o

http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/Developments_Fall_06.pdf

The plaintiff’s attorney, however, put an alleged aviation
“expert” on the stand who testified that, based on his review
of the FAA’s transcript of the controller’s communications
with all the airplanes, the controller was distracted
by the Bonanza’s gear-up incident, whether she thought so
or not. Because of this distraction, the expert claimed, the
controller did not give the other two airplanes sufficient
instructions so that they could avoid each other.

The jury apparently believed the aviation expert, and
awarded damages against the pilot who had the landing
gear incident in the amount of $2,195,416. Walker v. Segal,
Cook Cty. Cir. Ct. No.2002-L-2169.

 

[Dean]

99 out of 100 liability waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The legal columnist in the AOPA journal cited and reported on a case where an aviation related waiver was upheld. I believe it revolved around formation flying. Some of the elements that made it stick involved the fact that the pilot who signed the waiver (holding the other pilots and the aerobatic association harmless) had the opportunity to sign this in the comfort of his home and avail himself of legal advice.

I don't mean to suggest that it's not possible to have a liability waiver that will protect you from liability - it certainly is.

The problem is, as pointed out above, there are a whole bunch of potential problems in getting one - was it "fairly obtained," or "did the other party know what it was doing when he/she signed it," etc. Those are some of the "procedural niceties," for lack of a better term, involved in obtaining a valid signature/agreement on/to a waiver.

And, even assuming that you do get a valid agreement to a waiver, you are not allowed to disclaim your duties in certain settings (which is what a waiver is - it allows you to operate without regard to the consequences of what you're doing) - namely, you cannot contractually disclaim a duty that is imposed by law. And, in the aviation setting, a lot of duties are imposed by law.

Oh, and on top of all of that, there are also certain kinds of negligence that cannot be disclaimed. It really depends on where you are, but some states don't allow you to disclaim really egregious negligence (willful/wanton, gross, etc.). Say, for instance, you did something really dumb as a commercial operator, like not check the tanks for how much gas was actually in them, or not doing a walk-around and missing a brake hose that was disconnected, or flying a grossly overloaded plane. Even if you've got a waiver, it might not cover things like that.

To illustrate the rule-driven nature, though - setting up the NPS claim - wouldn't those three things I listed in the previous paragraph involve some kind of violation of a rule?

So, you're better off paying $X for a really good insurance policy, rather than relying on some paragraph in a contract. While the latter might work, it's so full of holes that I tell anyone who asks that they're taking a risk to rely solely on it.

 

[weilke]

I don't mean to suggest that it's not possible to have a liability waiver that will protect you from liability - it certainly is.

And that is all I wanted to illustrate....

There is certainly no bulletproof waiver, the point of the article was that the commonly held opinion that 'all waivers are not worth the paper they are written on' is not borne out by case law. People sign waivers to get on horsies, race motorcycles and skydive and in all cases waivers have been upheld.

 

[DutchessFlier]

I just read through the monograph on Walker v Segal. Holy crap Batman, everyone in here should read this and let the debate begin..I want to know who the aviation 'expert' is who was brought in to testify and where is the defense regarding see and be seen and PIC responsibility?

Just amazing, and sad.

 

[weilke]

I just read through the monograph on Walker v Segal. Holy crap Batman, everyone in here should read this and let the debate begin..I want to know who the aviation 'expert' is who was brought in to testify and where is the defense regarding see and be seen and PIC responsibility?

Just amazing, and sad.

C(K)ook County

 

[NotSure]

C(r)ook County

There fixed that for you

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I just read through the monograph on Walker v Segal. Holy crap Batman, everyone in here should read this and let the debate begin..I want to know who the aviation 'expert' is who was brought in to testify and where is the defense regarding see and be seen and PIC responsibility?

Just amazing, and sad.

That's the one with the mid-air over/near Lake Michigan, right?

I haven't thought about that case in a while now. Does anyone know if it were appealed? That's the type of case where I could see an appellate court saying "no liability as a matter of law."

It's a difficult concept to explain, but there are times when a court has the power to say something along the lines of "the law does not recognize liability in this instance, even if a jury says otherwise."

 

[poadeleted20]

I won't go so far as to say there is no such thing as an absolutely unbreakable liability waiver,

I will. At least in New York, liability waivers are unenforceable as a matter of law -- all liability waivers. Under NY state law, they are considered "contrary to public policy." This is discussed in J. Scott Hamilton's "Practical Aviation Law."

However, if you do some research, you'll find that in general, if you play by the rules, get proper training, don't do dumb things, and have a good liability insurance policy, you're pretty well covered.

 

[Steve Foley]

That's the one with the mid-air over/near Lake Michigan, right?

I haven't thought about that case in a while now. Does anyone know if it were appealed? That's the type of case where I could see an appellate court saying "no liability as a matter of law."

It's a difficult concept to explain, but there are times when a court has the power to say something along the lines of "the law does not recognize liability in this instance, even if a jury says otherwise."

I don't know if this will work as a direct link. If you google
"Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court"


Select online case info and full electronic docket search, plug in Segal as defendant, you come up with this link.
https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAC0L0AACBGJ0LD

The end result appears to be:

Activity Date: 11/8/2004 Participant: SEGAL MARSHALL B. PLACITA AND CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD FOR APPEAL FILED Court Fee: 341.50 Attorney: KAPLAN & VON OHLEN
Activity Date: 11/9/2006 Participant: SEGAL MARSHALL APPELLATE COURT MANDATE - AFFIRMED Judge: APPELLATE COURT Microfilm: LD000932447
Activity Date: 12/6/2006 Participant: SEGAL MARSH 7V/3E RECORD RETURNING FROM REVIEWING COURT Judge: APPELLATE COURT

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I don't know if this will work as a direct link. If you google
"Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court"


Select online case info and full electronic docket search, plug in Segal as defendant, you come up with this link.
https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAC0L0AACBGJ0LD

The end result appears to be:

Activity Date: 11/8/2004 Participant: SEGAL MARSHALL B. PLACITA AND CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD FOR APPEAL FILED Court Fee: 341.50 Attorney: KAPLAN & VON OHLEN
Activity Date: 11/9/2006 Participant: SEGAL MARSHALL APPELLATE COURT MANDATE - AFFIRMED Judge: APPELLATE COURT Microfilm: LD000932447
Activity Date: 12/6/2006 Participant: SEGAL MARSH 7V/3E RECORD RETURNING FROM REVIEWING COURT Judge: APPELLATE COURT

Looks like they affirmed it on appeal. Interesting.

What that means is that, regardless of whether we agree with it (and, trust me, I didn't agree with the result in this case), society - through its jurors and judges - has decided that in this setting, there should apparently be liability. We don't have to like it, but we do have to abide by it.

And that's why having good insurance is a must. First, the insurance is generally required to defend you - meaning that the insurance company foots the legal bill. Second, if you've got a policy with good limits, you're doing well.

It's also why, if you've got the kind of assets that make you a target (that's another unfortunate reality in the legal world), you'd do well to consider asset protection planning. That's especially true if you do things that involve a higher risk of severe injury to others (especially if those "others" have high incomes and thus higher damages in terms of lost incomes); but you also never know when, say, your tire is going to burst from a pothole and you're going to lose control of your car and plow into a school playground, and maybe a jury thinks you should have missed that pothole. That kind of planning has its limits, of course, but it's something worth considering if you've got a target on your back because of your wealth.

 

[sky1949]

I've go to plead ignorance on something in the title of this thread: what is "the red board"?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I've go to plead ignorance on something in the title of this thread: what is "the red board"?

Red is the AOPA board. Pilots of America is the "blue board," and there's a third that's just the "Purple Board." It confused me for the better part of year....

 

[poadeleted20]

And that, of course, brings up a whole 'nother issue - what if the flight is in Colorado, but the deceased is from Kansas? Whose law would govern say, a wrongful death action?

IIRC, liability suits involving air crashes are tried in Federal court under the liability laws of the state in which the crash occurred. That's going to complicate matters depending on what it says in the waiver about the state under whose laws it is to be construed.

But the real question is in which state they bury the survivors...

 

[Graueradler]

I'm interested in a liability waiver for a slightly different purpose. We have hangar keepers liability insurance and we are obligated to move some airplanes. If we are obligated to handle the plane, it is very clear that it is our nickel.

In other instances, we are doing the owner a favor at his request without obligation and without being paid. In these cases, it seems like we could use a waiver that says we are acting for the owner and, while we will be very careful with his plane, if we ding it, it is on his nickel, not ours. An example would be moving a plane to the wash rack and back in support of a CAP cadet fund raiser.

I posted a related question on the AOPA ASN board and basically got roasted for trying to duck my responsibility. Of course, most of the ASN people, like here, are aviators and not FBO operators.

 

[DutchessFlier]

Looks like they affirmed it on appeal. Interesting.

What that means is that, regardless of whether we agree with it (and, trust me, I didn't agree with the result in this case), society - through its jurors and judges - has decided that in this setting, there should apparently be liability. We don't have to like it, but we do have to abide by it.

And that's why having good insurance is a must. First, the insurance is generally required to defend you - meaning that the insurance company foots the legal bill. Second, if you've got a policy with good limits, you're doing well.

It's also why, if you've got the kind of assets that make you a target (that's another unfortunate reality in the legal world), you'd do well to consider asset protection planning. That's especially true if you do things that involve a higher risk of severe injury to others (especially if those "others" have high incomes and thus higher damages in terms of lost incomes); but you also never know when, say, your tire is going to burst from a pothole and you're going to lose control of your car and plow into a school playground, and maybe a jury thinks you should have missed that pothole. That kind of planning has its limits, of course, but it's something worth considering if you've got a target on your back because of your wealth.

With this logic, and the upheld decision of the insane jury and appeals court judge, why not sue every possible entity associated with the incident from manufacturers of the aircraft, the sub contractors who made the landing gear apparatus, the optometrist who prescribed and made the glasses worn by the defendant, and any and all things associated with the distracted ATC controller. Oh yeah, this is why Cessna stopped manufacturing light aircraft for umpteen years. I just started flying, and aircraft ownership, and sometimes I feel like hanging it up.

It's worse than I thought it would be...sadder than sad.

 

[Steve Foley]

With this logic, and the upheld decision of the insane jury and appeals court judge, why not sue every possible entity associated with the incident from manufacturers of the aircraft, the sub contractors who made the landing gear apparatus, the optometrist who prescribed and made the glasses worn by the defendant, and any and all things associated with the distracted ATC controller. Oh yeah, this is why Cessna stopped manufacturing light aircraft for umpteen years. I just started flying, and aircraft ownership, and sometimes I feel like hanging it up.

It's worse than I thought it would be...sadder than sad.

All the lawyer had to prove was that the controller's job was to control the airplanes. The fact that they collided shows that she was not controlling the airplanes.

Next they need to show that the reason she was not controlling the airplanes was because the aircraft with the gear malfunction was monopolizing her time with his 'silly little problem'.

The defense had to try to show that the controller's job is not, in fact, to control the airplanes.

If that's how it went down, the only chance for appeal is to show that no reasonable jury could determine, based on the evidence, that the controller's job was to control the airplanes.

 

[bstratt]

When I fly for Life Line Pilots, the patient (and whoever is accompanying the patient) signs a waiver provided by Life Line Pilots. This thread would indicate that is useless. Wouldn't that kill volunteer flying?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I'm interested in a liability waiver for a slightly different purpose. We have hangar keepers liability insurance and we are obligated to move some airplanes. If we are obligated to handle the plane, it is very clear that it is our nickel.

In other instances, we are doing the owner a favor at his request without obligation and without being paid. In these cases, it seems like we could use a waiver that says we are acting for the owner and, while we will be very careful with his plane, if we ding it, it is on his nickel, not ours. An example would be moving a plane to the wash rack and back in support of a CAP cadet fund raiser.

I posted a related question on the AOPA ASN board and basically got roasted for trying to duck my responsibility. Of course, most of the ASN people, like here, are aviators and not FBO operators.

I don't want to get into giving legal advice, but I don't see any reason why a waiver wouldn't, as a matter of a generality, be effective for you.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Barry: it's not useless. It can create another barrier to a litigant getting a judgment. One more legal way to increase the difficulty. You're reading about a pretty extreme case. There are a lot of variables to weigh. The defense may not have had it's best day in court. We don't know what evidence was presented and how it was countered.
If one doesn't have assets that can be accessed, most suits won't go far. The more barriers, the easier it may be to settle.
There's a fella here in Dallas that has 84 business entities. Not saying that's practical for all, but one may have to get through many layers to collect.
If one has substantial assets, they need to do good planning: insurance, barriers that give incentives to be reasonable, limited partnerships can't have judgments exercised against them: homesteads give protection in many states: federal retirement plans are difficult to collect against, etc.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I don't want to get into giving legal advice, but I don't see any reason why a waiver wouldn't, as a matter of a generality, be effective for you.

The question is whether folks would sign one. I wouldn't! If you're moving my plane and you ding it, it's on you IMO.

Best,

Dave

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

With this logic, and the upheld decision of the insane jury and appeals court judge, why not sue every possible entity associated with the incident from manufacturers of the aircraft, the sub contractors who made the landing gear apparatus, the optometrist who prescribed and made the glasses worn by the defendant, and any and all things associated with the distracted ATC controller. Oh yeah, this is why Cessna stopped manufacturing light aircraft for umpteen years. I just started flying, and aircraft ownership, and sometimes I feel like hanging it up.

It's worse than I thought it would be...sadder than sad.

That's actually exactly how it works.

Construction defect litigation might be the best example that there is. Say you've had a house built, you move in, and you find cracks in the walls. Let's say the statute of limitations expires soon.

So, you sue the general contractor. The general contractor, in turn, sues the drywaller, sues the excavating company, sues the mason who laid the foundation, sues the carpenters, sues the guys who built the floors, maybe even sues the roofers. And, on top of that, all of the people are suing each other.

It's a gigantic mess. Especially 2 years in, when you've finally gotten all of your expert reports in, and all of the experts are saying that it was a problem with the foundation.

The reason you sue everyone at the outset is because you have a limited period of time to file suit - generally between 1 and 3 years. If you don't name everyone, you might not name the party at fault, and then you're screwed.

So, you go with the "shotgun approach." It's the same in aviation litigation. You sue the plane manufacturer (akin to the general contractor). You sue Garmin. You sue whoever made the fuel pump, the gyros, the radio, the seats, the tire manufacturer, the light bulb manufacturer. You literally name everyone because, if you're a plaintiff and you don't name someone and your time runs out, and that defendant you don't name was the one solely at fault, you're up the proverbial creek.

Seem screwed up? If you think so, I'd agree. But, to change that system would take some serious changes in our legal system. We're not talking the standard mantra of "tort reform" that we hear thrown around all the time, where nobody really knows what's involved, what they're talking about, or much of anything else. We're talking specific changes that would have serious everyday consequences to all of us.

 

[sky1949]

When I fly for Life Line Pilots, the patient (and whoever is accompanying the patient) signs a waiver provided by Life Line Pilots. This thread would indicate that is useless. Wouldn't that kill volunteer flying?

This not legal advice. I don't know the law of your jurisdiction. That said, it would be my opinion that it isn't worth the paper it's written on. What, are you going to get the signature of a seriously injured person to sign this release-"either sign it or I leave you here to die."

Good luck.