On Oct 8, 7:58*am, Stubby wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:08*am, Kingfish wrote:





Quoted from aero-news.net

"Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
million, according to the mediator in the case.

The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
millions of dollars in property damage to the building.

The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.

Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.

Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
building and personal injury.

A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
tragic accident."

Nice to see common sense prevailed here.

But who was the Pilot in Command? *If this was a training flight, it
would be the CFI. *If it was just for fun, then whatever the two
pilots agreed on prevails. * By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for
the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who
should be sued.
The OP indicates rational analysis was used -- if there are no assets
available, why sue?