"Juan E Jimenez" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
Not that it came from nowhere, but that it was covered by insurance
premiums
which may or may not have gone up. Actually, there'd probably be a
deductible.

And pigs flew that night. shrug

But were they licensed or self-certified? :-)

The plaintiff made the choice to accept a payment rather than having a
judge
award them: nothing, less, the same, or more.

And the result is the same as if the judge had awarded the money.

The money spends/cost the same, but since there was no judgment, there's no
ruling on the merits of the case.

As a previous post hinted, it's not a zero-sum game.
Even with a judges ruling, both sides can win and both sides can lose.
Of course, the lawyers always win.

It upsets me when people decide to argue points without bothering to read
the few messages in the thread. I'm sure it would upset you too.

I've read every line of every one of the 146 posts so far... and I don't get
upset that easily (however, I make up for it when I DO get upset )

Still equates to American failure to accept personal responsibility in
my
book. If I slip and fall on the ice, I say "whoops, how clumsy of me",
not
"who's
fault is this? who can I sue?"

This wasn't a slip and fall. The allegation was that the design of the UL
was wrong, not that he slipped and fell from the sky.

*shrug* personal responsibility is personal responsibility.
I don't recall if the case identified the pilot's experience, both total and
in make&model.
That makes more difference than whether it was a "slip and fall" or whether
his leg was torn off and used to beat him over the head.

First, a good reason why kit builders shouldn't offer "ready to fly"
options
unless they go the route of full certification (though I guess even that
offers no protection).

So much for the Sport Pilot initiative...

More pilots and more planes are good.
More lawsuits are bad.
Fortunately, it's not my job to reconcile the two.

Eric