Droping things from aircraft? Two kids injured at MI Minor Leauge BB Game

[sleddriver71]

Oops, 81 horse beat me to it, man that sucks, I have 1100 hp and he still beat me...

 

[FN FAL]

So I guess one has to ask the Reasonable Man what he thinks about dropping $$ for kids.

Any commercial or movie that I ever saw with a scene where money came out out of the sky, had people running around crazy. Look what happened when the armored car dumped the money off the overpass?

Not only that, but the very fact that they asked people to sign a waiver, shows that they knew it was going to be dangerous activity.

 

[FN FAL]

FAR 91.15 "No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this secion does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property."

Making people sign a waiver isn't "reasonable precautions".

 

[81Horse]

I have 1100 hp and he still beat me...

It's all in the wrist, dude.

FN FAL, your point about the waiver's a good one: somebody must have thought there was some danger involved. I wonder how high above the crowd the chopper was? 'Cause there's your FAR violation right there, probably.

On a side note: had an acquaintance once who was busted by the FAA for dropping marshmallows over a football field during halftime. The drop was arranged for by the school, and no one was injured; however, somebody narked -- the pilot was charged with violating safe altitude requirements (open air assembly of peebs, etc.).

 

[Dr Pokenhiemer]

Waivers do not stand up in court--they are for keeping people who don't know that from sueing. I took it that the kids were standing behind a line and couldn't move until the money was already dropped. If that's the case, reasonable precautions were taken and Darwin's Rule about survival of the fittest was in play. It's nature's way of thinning the herd.

 

[FN FAL]

Waivers do not stand up in court--they are for keeping people who don't know that from sueing.

So if something doesn't "stand up in court" you can't use it as evidence?

So, if polygraph machines don't "stand up in court", I could beat you to death with one and that evidence would not be viewed by the courts as admissible?

 

[Dr Pokenhiemer]

Have you ever been to a baseball game? There is a waiver printed on the back of the ticket saying they are not responsible for injuries from flying balls or bats. By purchasing the ticket, you accept the waiver. To answer your question, you can introduce the polygraph machine into evidence when used as a weapon in an assault, but not the results of a polygraph test. It's too easy to beat the machine.

And to think--I just took up for you in a different forum because you can't spell worth a crap. Didn't know you didn't have any common sense either!

 

[81Horse]

But DrPoke, wouldn't the fact that somebody thought a waiver was necessary be relevant? If reasonable precautions were taken, why was anyone asked to sign a waiver?

I think we all concur that a signed waiver would not prevent someone from bringing suit.

And I don't find the baseball analogy apt. A Reasonable Man would say any idiot who goes to a baseball game knows baseballs fly into the crowd sometimes; but would he say the same idiot expects money to fly out of helicopters at a baseball game?