Excel-Jet sues FAA for Sport-Jet crash

I didn't find this anywhere in the past in this group though
admittedly I didn't look too hard, so forgive me if it's already been
hashed-out here.

I was just reading the latest General Aviation News and ran across an
article on the Sport-Jet crash on June 22, 2006.

The jet was cleared for takeoff behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of
mandatory seperation requirements." When the small jet encountered
wake turbulence upon rotation & liftoff, it rolled and crashed,
causing minor injuries.

Apparently the ATC manual says there must be a 3 minute seperation and
the NTSB "snapshot" put the Sport-Jet in the same area of the Dash-8 2
min & 11 sec. later. Arguments counter that there is no way that the
vorticies would be around after 2 minutes.

Anyway, at first my thought was; It's the pilot's responsibility to
decide whether or not his takeoff is too soon after a large plane's
departure. Personally, I have at least once requested a longer
"position & hold" time from ATC after a Southwest 737 took off in
front of me at Love Field (much to their frustration).
But I'm not so sure anymore. Truly, how many of us give consideration
about wake vorticies departing (or landing) behind larger aircraft?

Who do you think is at fault here?

Excel-Jet is surely going after a large settlement from the FAA in the
loss of their $1 million plus prototype and the injuries and, the
article says, loss of business and profits. They claim there is NO
FAULT with the pilots or the Sport-Jet.

What do you think?

Ricky