ProletarianParka

IANAL, I am a law student and I did enjoy Torts class.

All of the following is applicable only to United States law, specifically California, but other states may use the outline principles if they themselves have no case law on the subject.

Here is what I have on whether or not waivers of liability will hold up in court, which is a test drawn from the case Tunkl v Regents of California, the more factors you meet the more likely the waiver will not be enforced:

1. The agreement concerns a type of business thought suitable for regulation
2. The company performs an important public service
3. The company performs this service for anyone who seeks it
4. The company has greater bargaining strength
5. The company does not allow consumers to pay additional fees to protect against the company's negligence
6. The injured party was under the company's control.

Skydiving is definitely an industry suitable for regulation, and I bet you could argue that the company had the greater bargaining power, had total and exclusive control of OP's safety, and who knows whether he could have paid extra up front to be able to sue the company for negligence.

But there are other factors at play here-- skydiving is an inherently risky activity, and is in fact an activity people chose to engage in because of that risk. I don't know enough about anything to say how it should turn out, but I do know that courts generally don't like to allow company's to waive away the consequences of their own negligence.

Think of the probation as a suspended sentence.

The judge who presided over his sentencing was probably like, well this is a serious crime, and warrants maybe 6 years in prison. But the defendant is young, it's his first conviction, maybe it would be better and more rehabilitative if he served only 6 months and was on probation for the next 5 year.

And then OP violated the terms of probation, so the sentencing judge there probably thought OP had his chance and fucked it up, so he should suffer the consequences that his original crime warranted.

I think the last point is dangerous information to be spreading. I am a criminal defense attorney in a southern state with "safe haven/good Samaritan" laws and people DO get felony convictions and jail when they or others call 911 for help even with these laws on the books.

Aww thank you I considered putting in something about strict liability and trying to control ultra hazardous activities but decided not too.

Also gonna be 100% honest did not read the article because I am a bit grossed out by the idea of someone free falling and hitting the ground.

I know it's a California test but won't other courts (in the US) use the factors or underlying principals occasionally when dealing with their own laws/cases if they themselves don't have a precedent in their jurisdiction?

My states statute requires that the report be made for an individual having an overdose, which "means a life-threatening condition resulting from the consumption or use of a controlled substance, alcohol, or any combination of such substances"

Therefore we've had cases where bystander sees person passed out, calls 911 and it wasn't an overdose. Prosecutor: This shouldn't apply for two reasons: A) Bystander has no medical training and didn't identify this as an overdose on the call so this can't be dismissed under this law. B) Alternatively, medical personnel arrived and determined this was not an overdose. Therefore this law doesn't apply.

Judge:ok

Alternate case, person passes out and hits their head. Prosecutor: well the other person called because of a head wound/bleeding, not an overdose so this law can't apply.