Flaps_50! wrote:
On Oct 10, 6:28Â*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
Â*Jeffrey Bloss wrote:



On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:40 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

In article ,
Â*Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
proper result.

Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
negligence except in theory.

The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.

You're waaaaaaaay off the mark.

It's clear that you have no interest in a productive discussion, so into
the killfile with you.

(It's not useful to just say "you're wrong" all the time, you have to
actually back it up.)

--
Why isn't the summary of the NTSB viewed in the same way as the
opinion of an expert witness -or is it?

Cheers

This has been answered many times; NTSB opinions are not admissible as
evidence in court.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.