"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03...

On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can
look
at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.

Juan,

If you think that every out-of-court settlement is an admission of
negligence or responsibility, you are an idiot. Maybe, your stupid peasant
mentality can't comprehend how an individual or company could agree to a
tremendous settlement.

Screw it, I think that Juan is a helpless case. For the rest of you...

For any of you that might have found logic in Juan's analysis that
settlements imply guilt or responsibility, I'll share a personal story. I
don't know enough about Chuck's settlements to offer a comparison, but I
would dare to say that there are parallels to my story.

In many, if not most cases, out-of-court settlements are acts of
preservation. I'm not just talking self-preservation - I'm talking about
preserving things that you value more than shallow moral victories - like
your ability to support your family and the families of those you employ,
people that have supported a company through their hard work and sacrifices
made over their careers.

Sometimes, you can't afford to take a chance. The risks are too great.

In the not so distant past, a company owned by a relative of mine settled a
case, out of court, for a tremendous sum of money, based on the advice of
both their insurance company and lawyers.

In this case, a truck driver lost control of his truck and attempted to jump
out of the truck before it ran off the road into a rather steep ravine. The
driver was killed in his foolish attempt to avoid injury or death, as the
truck rolled over him. Had the driver been wearing his seatbelt, it is
likely that he would have walked away without serious injury, as the cabin
was undamaged.

Before the same truck was driven off the crash site (after being put back on
its wheels), the truck was inspected by both the DOT and Mine Safety
inspectors. According to the DOT inspectors, the only things that would
have kept the truck from passing an inspection to legal road-service were
the crushed lights.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that my relative's company was not at
fault, the insurance company was not prepared to let a jury decide the case
and settled the case for what almost any of us on this board would consider
a tremendous amount of money. In the geographic area involved in this case,
no insurance company had ever won a wrongful death suit. The evidence
didn't matter.

Nearing retirement, my relative could have risked the company and its assets
by fighting the "good fight". His personal wealth would not have been
impacted greatly by the company's bankruptcy or insolvency that a negative
jury decision could have yielded.

He took a bitter pill and along with the insurance company, settled the
suit. Almost ten years later, twenty people still have their jobs, their
homes, and their security.

Chuck, don't let the *******s get you down.