Contacttower, you are of course totally correct. It's likely that the jumper had identified the field as his landing point and just hadn't begun to flare at the point Ms Lacey believed he was going to hit her house.
The point I was trying to make was that the person most likely to be injured in that sort of accident is the jumper, not anyone on the ground. To try to claim that you are "traumatised and distressed" is a bit much really and sounds horribly like someone positioning for a compensation claim of "mental anguish" or some other such nonsense. If one thing gets my goat it's the rapidly burgeoning compensation culture that we seem to be intent on importing from the US.
I'll be quiet now, don't want to appear to grumpy in my first couple of posts!
