Good news for private pilots' spouses

"Kingfish" wrote:

It's gone beyond stupid in this country, when
juries award ridiculous amounts because some scumbag lawyer talked a
grieving widow/widower into suing for damages.

We have here a situation in which there was (probably) one
scumbag lawyer fighting on behalf of the grieving widow, one
(or more) scumbag lawyers fighting on behalf of the FAA and
one scumbag lawyer fighting on behalf of Sun n Fun. The
case couldn't even have been filed without the permission of
the grieving widow, and no damages could have been awarded
without the agreement of the jury and approval of the judge.
Further, this was a settlement, so no money had to be paid
unless the FAA, Sun n Fun and/or their insurance companies
agreed. I'm not a fan of the results we are seeing in cases
like this, but given that there were more scumbags fighting
to stop this than to push it forward, I'm inclined to lay
the blame on juries, judges, the applicable law, grieving
widows/plaintiffs and those who are so willing to settle
rather than fight before I'm going to blame the "scumbags."

YMMV

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:vX09g.18419$ZW3.5002@dukeread04...
Trial lawyers will bring a suit anytime they feel that they
can find a stupid jury. I recall a case in the Miami area;
a pilot left the bar with a pretty heavy load of alcohol and
went to the airport. He pulled his Cherokee out of the
hanger about 4 AM and took off. He was sightseeing when the
fog rolled in. He flew around waiting for the fog to burn
off, which was mid-morning. Unfortunately he ran out of
fuel about an hour before and he crashed and died.
The widow and her lawyer sued, because the fuel tanks were
not big enough to let him stay aloft until the fog burned
off. I understand they won.

Many years ago, Cessna was successfully sued by the estate of a pilot that
flew into a shear rock wall (CFIT). The basis of the suit was that better
shoulder harnesses would have saved his life. This in the days before three
point harnesses, just lap belts and the model he was flying was well before
the three-point harness years.

IWLTB, that this was the case that broke the camels back and led Cessna to
drop out of the industry until the 1994 law was enacted.

Side note: the reason Ruger started stamping their guns with that verbose
warning (late 1970' or early 80's) was due to losing a suit to the estate of
a guy who was playing Russian Roulette. I suppose the warning would have
stopped him...

"RA Samos" wrote in message
...
"Kingfish" wrote:

It's gone beyond stupid in this country, when
juries award ridiculous amounts because some scumbag lawyer talked a
grieving widow/widower into suing for damages.

We have here a situation in which there was (probably) one
scumbag lawyer fighting on behalf of the grieving widow, one
(or more) scumbag lawyers fighting on behalf of the FAA and
one scumbag lawyer fighting on behalf of Sun n Fun. The
case couldn't even have been filed without the permission of
the grieving widow, and no damages could have been awarded
without the agreement of the jury and approval of the judge.
Further, this was a settlement, so no money had to be paid
unless the FAA, Sun n Fun and/or their insurance companies
agreed. I'm not a fan of the results we are seeing in cases
like this, but given that there were more scumbags fighting
to stop this than to push it forward, I'm inclined to lay
the blame on juries, judges, the applicable law, grieving
widows/plaintiffs and those who are so willing to settle
rather than fight before I'm going to blame the "scumbags."

YMMV


I'd almost agree with you BUT the scumbags work real hard to keep a group of
SUPER scumbags from passing any laws that would help fix the problem.

I totally agree. We are getting to the point where whwnever someone
dies, no matter what the cause or who was at fault there's a lawyer
out there offering to sue.

It just serves to illustrate how inane and impotent this country has
become.

I went on a date with a lawyer once, and I ranted in the same manner. (I
figured I was pretty safe because she was a former prosecutor, and not
involved in ambulance chasing.) But then she mentioned she comes from a
family of lawyers, and her brother was specifically in the business of going
after airplane manufacturers. I never heard from her again.

"C. Massey" wrote in message news:xIM8g.15858

If the two pilots "failed to heed commands", I don't understand how the
FAA and the promoter can be at fault. I realize the word "contributed" was
used, but the way the article reads, it sounds like pilot error.

Of course it was, predominantly. As the pilot, you just have to pay
attention. Its that simple. I'm sure the Fed and the event insuror settled
because it was cheaper and lower risk than going to trial, where a weeping
widow giving testimony would make short shrift of objective legal analysis.

"kontiki" wrote in message news:7xZ8g.859

.... We are getting to the point where whwnever someone
dies, no matter what the cause or who was at fault there's a lawyer
out there offering to sue.

I recall seeing a billboard in Miami several years ago touting some shyster
ambulance chaser. The text simply read "If you've been hurt in an accident,
somebody somewhere owes you money. CALL 555.........................."

Its just a bunch of low-class slime appealing to the basest instincts of
other low-class slime. An easy sell........

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"kontiki" wrote in message news:7xZ8g.859

.... We are getting to the point where whwnever someone
dies, no matter what the cause or who was at fault there's a lawyer
out there offering to sue.

I recall seeing a billboard in Miami several years ago touting some
shyster ambulance chaser. The text simply read "If you've been hurt in an
accident, somebody somewhere owes you money. CALL
555.........................."

Its just a bunch of low-class slime appealing to the basest instincts of
other low-class slime.

Unfortunately, polls indicate that the "other low-class slime" is about 80%+
of the US populace.

An easy sell........

The apparent propensity to overindulge in credit cards and such indicates
it's more widespread than you give credit for.

There was a military troop flight that crashed in Gander on
take-off [if I remember the details]. The plane had landed
to refuel and when it departed, the wheels were frozen and
did not roll. But on the ice, the crew did not notice and
they began the take-off roll [slide?]. The runway was
patchy and the acceleration was uneven. The crew finally
decided to abort and they went off the end of the runway.
The accident report said that the plane skidded off the
runway and some lawyer was looking at the plane's equipment
list and saw that it was equipped with anti-skid brakes.

Since the plane skidded off the runway, the brakes MUST have
failed so he sued.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:vX09g.18419$ZW3.5002@dukeread04...
| Trial lawyers will bring a suit anytime they feel that
they
| can find a stupid jury. I recall a case in the Miami
area;
| a pilot left the bar with a pretty heavy load of alcohol
and
| went to the airport. He pulled his Cherokee out of the
| hanger about 4 AM and took off. He was sightseeing when
the
| fog rolled in. He flew around waiting for the fog to
burn
| off, which was mid-morning. Unfortunately he ran out of
| fuel about an hour before and he crashed and died.
| The widow and her lawyer sued, because the fuel tanks
were
| not big enough to let him stay aloft until the fog
burned
| off. I understand they won.
|
| Many years ago, Cessna was successfully sued by the estate
of a pilot that
| flew into a shear rock wall (CFIT). The basis of the suit
was that better
| shoulder harnesses would have saved his life. This in the
days before three
| point harnesses, just lap belts and the model he was
flying was well before
| the three-point harness years.
|
| IWLTB, that this was the case that broke the camels back
and led Cessna to
| drop out of the industry until the 1994 law was enacted.
|
| Side note: the reason Ruger started stamping their guns
with that verbose
| warning (late 1970' or early 80's) was due to losing a
suit to the estate of
| a guy who was playing Russian Roulette. I suppose the
warning would have
| stopped him...
|
|
|

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message news:_V29g.19


Its just a bunch of low-class slime appealing to the basest instincts of
other low-class slime.

Unfortunately, polls indicate that the "other low-class slime" is about
80%+ of the US populace.

I'm not sure where you're going, matt. Do you mean that 80% of the US
population has filed a frivilous or baseless lawsuit?


An easy sell........

The apparent propensity to overindulge in credit cards and such indicates
it's more widespread than you give credit for.

????

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message news:_V29g.19


Its just a bunch of low-class slime appealing to the basest instincts of
other low-class slime.

Unfortunately, polls indicate that the "other low-class slime" is about
80%+ of the US populace.

I'm not sure where you're going, matt. Do you mean that 80% of the US
population has filed a frivilous or baseless lawsuit?

Would.

According to a couple surveys, given even minor occurances, nearly four out
of five said they would sue.



An easy sell........

The apparent propensity to overindulge in credit cards and such indicates
it's more widespread than you give credit for.

????

Evidently most things are an easy sell...especially on credit.

Oh, for the "Keep up with the Jones'" of the 60's.