|
Parasailing can be both exhilarating and fraught with risk.
It is in those unfortunate incidents where an individual is injured that the issue of liability arises.
Obvious questions would be did the operator disregard clear signs of danger such as weather conditions, worn or defective equipment which raise issues of negligence or even willful conduct with criminal implications.
While no single formula can be applied to analyze or resolve all parasail injury cases, there are certain key and recurring matters that warrant consideration.
First, did the injured participant sign a waiver or release of liability prior to engaging in the activity? Depending upon both the language (text) and how it is presented on the form and the law of the jurisdiction where the injury occurred would validate its use in
court.
Second, were the passengers given a full and detailed safety briefing of known risks and contingencies not just a friendly introduction of the crew, equipment and surrounding area. But rather an instructive, informative briefing prior to the commencement of operations thus capturing the undivided attention of the passengers who are depending on the operator to bring them back Safety. This briefing should include not only a description of the things that can go wrong (e.g. boat stops, line breaks, boat sinks, fire etc.) but the activity itself including safety precautions while underway, procedures in the event of an unexpected emergency, proper use of hands signals and precluding of any participants who appears to be afraid or intimidated prior to their aerial excursion. And finally, for those operators who use the body harness, a water survival course that outlines emergency evacuation procedures during unexpected
waterlandings, drowning prevention techniques, body position instructions for flight deck landings and high speed
waterlandings.
Also included in this category of consideration and accident prevention is the type of equipment being utilized and competent training. As for equipment, was the equipment involved in the accident the safest available on the market. Is another type of equipment safer?, or if utilized would
it have prevented the accident from occurring or reduced the severity of injuries? With regard to competent training, did the operator have sufficient training by
a reputable institution and possess the skill and knowledge of parasail operations, including but not limited to following established guidelines and safe operating procedures,
proficient in emergency rescue techniques, certified in CPR, capable of following instructions for proper use of safety equipment
and able to immediately notify medical personnel.
The failure to incorporate such safeguards into the operation can be signs of negligence issues supporting litigation and labeling that operation as a high risk.
Finally, at least for the purposes of this brief overview, one should always consider whether the equipment in use at the time of the accident or injury was in disrepair or properly maintained. Even worse are those situations in which the operator and/or manufacturer was notified that certain equipment may be dangerous or defective and
took no measures to remedy or replace and ultimately ignore the warning. Such products liability questions not only create potential liability for the operator but also exposure for the manufacturer and other third parties who directly or indirectly benefit or receive
compensation.
Regardless of the situation, an individual whose innocent participation results in serious injury or death from a preventable accident is inexcusable and has prompted underwriters and reinsurance companies to take a closer look at the risk vs. rewards formula.
At the current rate accident
rate combined with higher costs of court settlements and operators unwilling to use safer equipment and
follow independent safe operating guidelines that are in the best interest of the public, and not the operator,
insurance rates will become unaffordable within the next couple of years.
|