A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The OSH Pool Party is just 30 days away!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12  
Old June 27th 04, 04:14 AM
jls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
in article , jls at
wrote on 6/25/04 9:34 PM:

I have never seen a judgment
awarded to an injured plaintiff when there wasn't some proof of

negligence
or defective design proximately causing the injury.


You need to get your nose out of those law books and take a look at the

real
world, you're living in a fantasy world.


Ah, my partisan friend, you need to furnish evidence it -- a case going to
the jury without evidence of negligence -- has happened, otherwise be
thought of as shooting from the hip with a $2 pistol.

I haven't read much law since taking the bar in the 70's, haven't needed to
all that much, but I've learned people's "facts" often lack substance and
substantiation, and will twist the facts to suit their purpose. It's always
good then to consider what one has at stake when one takes a position, and
you rarely if ever have a pilot or CFI or aircraft owner or engineer or
owner of an FBO taking the side of a plaintiff like the Carnahan widow.

In the Carnahan case there was indeed testimony that the Parker-Hannifin
gyro failed, that P-H gyros had performance problems on other occasions in
other aircraft, and therefore P-H had notice of a defect or defects needing
to be cured. At any rate P-H settled, constituting an admission of
liability. The other character in this thread saying there was no such
evidence is hanging his hat on AOPA's take of the evidence. You could
hardly say THEY are objective at AOPA in these controversies ---- about as
objective as Michael Moore is about George Bush.

I just read another whiner complaining that the jury disregarded the NTSB
report in the Carnahan case, but he is naive because ordinarily those
reports, just like a highway patrolman's report of an auto accident, are and
always have been inadmissible as evidence before a jury. I'd be willing
the bet the jury never saw the NTSB report, so that guy is writing something
deceptive, something to mislead the reader, in order to justify his position
against the lawsuit.

Then you hear, Oh, we're going to be priced out of the sky by these
lawsuits. They're so frivolous, and so costly and we'll never be able to
buy another gyro ever again, and oh the sky is falling and oh these trial
lawyers are ruining the world, sucking the very lifeblood out of general
aviation. Well buuuullll ****. The widow Carnahan was looking for 100
million and she got 4. Big deal.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oshkosh Rec.Aviation Party Pictures Jay Honeck Home Built 2 December 30th 03 02:36 PM
What are you guys using for cockpit lights these days? Stealth Pilot Home Built 6 December 9th 03 09:14 AM
Wrong Brothers Air Force Party Invite Jay Honeck Home Built 1 July 20th 03 10:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.