The Witbank Skydiving Club is liable for the damages suffered by a then 17-year-old who fractured her leg and injured her back when she completed a static line first skydiving jump without the permission of her parents.
Euleine de Kock, now 21, is claiming about R305 000 in damages, but the Pretoria High Court at this stage only determined liability for her damages.
The matter will later go back to court for De Kock to try to prove what damages she suffered and how much she should be paid.
De Kock was injured when she landed on May 17, 2008.
Before the jump she underwent skydiving training at the club.
She said the club, and her instructor, were liable for her damages as they allowed her to jump, although she was a minor and did not have permission from her parents to jump that day.
The skydiving club said it had given De Kock an indemnity form which indemnified the club if she got injured, and a consent form that had to be signed by her parents.
These forms were only partly completed – some by her herself and other parts by friends. The section indicating the relationship of the person signing the consent was left blank.
De Kock was not supposed to jump that day, although she was a student at the club.
She was there to give moral support to her friends who were to jump. One of her friends decided not to jump and De Kock was persuaded by the others to jump in her place.
They did a static first line jump from 3 500 feet.
All the students, apart from De Kock, landed safely in the drop zone. She, however, drifted downwind and landed in a field, where she was injured.
Acting Judge N Davis said the instructor – one of the parties against whom the claim has been instituted – was not at fault, as he had nothing to do with the completion of the forms or obtaining consent.
But the judge found that it was the skydiving club’s legal duty to ensure that minors had the consent of their parents before they jumped. The club operates in terms of the rules of the Parachute Organisation of SA, which had clear regulations with which the club had to comply.
The judge said it was clear that the club, although it required consent to be given and an indemnification to be completed, did so for formality’s sake only.
The fact that the club’s manifest officer deemed it appropriate to complete such forms even at a later stage (after a jump) for the sole purpose of complying with the rules that such forms must be completed, confirmed this. He did not even witness anyone signing these forms.
“No one else made any effort to ensure that a valid consent or indemnification had been obtained. It is clear that the first defendant (the club) is in breach of its duty,” the judge said.
The club cannot rely on the misrepresentation of De Kock, that she did have consent, as she was a minor at the time.
Judge Davies said if the club made enquiries that day and found De Kock was an unassisted minor without consent to jump, none of the ensuing consequences would have occurred.
Pretoria News