Cirrus sued by Lidle's & Stanger's families

On Mar 5, 2:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Ash Wyllie wrote:

Better to just ban punitive damages.

I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
should be levied.

On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
should be levied.

One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.

I think you missed the point. Yes, we should have punitive damages.
However, they should not be a lotto ticket for the claimant. If a
regulator found a problem in the design would they randomly find a car
owner and give them the fine money? Why should the legal system work
that way???

-Robert

On Mar 5, 12:58 pm, "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:
"chris" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" wrote:
"Kingfish" wrote

I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
the cause. Unbelievable.

They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when
it
is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor
up
the river that far, etc.

Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably
was -
what a shocker.

BDS

Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
responsibility??

If the plaintiff in a lawsuit had to pay for the defendants legal bills if
the plaintiff loses (like in Europe) most of this frivolous suing BS would
go away. Well I'm off to pour hot coffee all over my crotch.

Europe is getting much more litigious every day. I've seen estimates
that their legal system will be parallel to the U.S. in about 8 years.

-Robert

On Mar 5, 10:50 am, "Kingfish" wrote:

The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.

It's intention. It's called JSL (Joint and Several Liability). It's
the "Deep Pockets" theory coded into law!!

-Robert

"Peter R." wrote in
:

If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I
was riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile
pulled out of a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right.
I was unable to avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted
over the top of the car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.

The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my
medical expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and
didn't bother suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite
the fact that it would have been an open-and-shut case.

In 1985 it might have been an open-and-shut case.

If that accident were to have happened today, you would have been lucky to
get off so easy - the attorneys for the driver of the other vehicle would
have taken everything as contingency for their suit against you...

deanwil wrote

So that explains why at 42, I have never been called for Jury duty! I
am both an engineer and a pilot...

Nah... You would be perfect for a malpractice case. g
--
Jim in NC

On Mar 5, 3:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Ash Wyllie wrote:

Better to just ban punitive damages.

I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
should be levied.

On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
should be levied.

One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.

There is a place for punitive damages, sure. But...
I don't know of any other part of our legal system where citizens can
actually exact a punishment against someone. We usually--and
properly--reserve punishment as a function of our government at some
layer. Punitive damages is nothing more than one person financially
punishing another. And as we've seen, juries dole out the punishment
as much for sympathy for the victim as they do punishment for
wrongdoing.

What to do with the punitive damage money? That's a problem, in times
when governments tend to enact financial punishment (fines) for
financial gain instead of simply control. Certainly the involved
government should not benefit. If it went to charities, the judge/
jury might be punitive just to benefit a charity. How 'bout this:
pay the punitive damages in cash, and burn it. Punishment exacted; no
one benefits.

I like the idea of lawyers not getting a cut of the punitive
damages!!!!!

On Mar 6, 11:07 am, "Peter R." wrote:
On 3/5/2007 3:08:03 PM, "chris" wrote:

This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
something wrong with Americans!

Um, it's not Americans, but rather the American legal system about which you
are complaining. As an American, I can tell you that I am just as ****ed off
about these types of lawsuits as perhaps the majority of us are. These types
of lawsuits have really changed our society for the worse over the last
thirty years.

If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I was
riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile pulled out of
a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right. I was unable to
avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted over the top of the
car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.

The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my medical
expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and didn't bother
suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite the fact that it
would have been an open-and-shut case.

--
Peter

I understand. It just seems that from what we see of the USA the
place seems to be filled with gung-ho rednecks who sue at the drop of
a hat.. Or that's how the media seems to portray it.. No offense to
those with normal coloured necks :-)

In NZ we have a system called ACC, or Accident Compensation, run by
the government. As I understand it if you go on ACC you are prevented
from suing.

So for us, the idea of suing someone is a completely alien concept.

How 'bout this:
pay the punitive damages in cash, and burn it. Punishment exacted; no
one benefits.

Actually, that is the same as handing it to the IRS. Remember, "money"
is just an IOU from the government. Burn the IOU, you give money to the
government.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Kingfish wrote:
I guess we all knew this was gonna happen...

I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
the cause. Unbelievable. They claim the feds' data show Cirrus
aircraft having a history of aileron failures and other accidents
involving flight control failures. I've read about quite a few Cirrus
accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
system failure(?)

So they go after the engine mfr (did it quit on them?) and the
propeller mfr (did it fall off?) and the autopilot mfr (did George fly
them into the building?) The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.


I think the widow should sue the person who built the building. After
all, anyone with half a brain knows that building a building more than 3
stories tall is just asking for trouble with airplanes.


Matt

chris wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:07 am, "Peter R." wrote:
On 3/5/2007 3:08:03 PM, "chris" wrote:

This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
something wrong with Americans!
Um, it's not Americans, but rather the American legal system about which you
are complaining. As an American, I can tell you that I am just as ****ed off
about these types of lawsuits as perhaps the majority of us are. These types
of lawsuits have really changed our society for the worse over the last
thirty years.

If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I was
riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile pulled out of
a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right. I was unable to
avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted over the top of the
car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.

The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my medical
expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and didn't bother
suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite the fact that it
would have been an open-and-shut case.

--
Peter

I understand. It just seems that from what we see of the USA the
place seems to be filled with gung-ho rednecks who sue at the drop of
a hat.. Or that's how the media seems to portray it.. No offense to
those with normal coloured necks :-)

Actually, rednecks are about the least likely to sue. It is the rich,
urban folks that tend to sue. Rednecks have more direct ways to gain
compensation or extract revenge. :-)

Matt