The frustrating economics of aviation

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.


Philip Sondericker wrote:

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really specific
solution that has been posted.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem? :-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




DH

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:19:47 GMT, kontiki wrote:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.

In many states, and Maine is one of them, a very similar process exists for
medical malpractice cases. The screening panels are also set up to allow
prompt payment of meritorious claims.

http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/olrd...003-R-0607.htm


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

kontiki wrote:

The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits.

Would this be enough to catch a lawsuit against a vacuum pump company for a
crash where the vacuum pump worked? Evidence would need to be presented as
to why the company was included in the action, and evidence would need to
be presented that the pump was (or was not) working.

I like the direction you're taking, but I think it would involve more
time/work that you've envisioned.

However: keep in mind that a jury awarded monies in the case where the
non-failed vacuum pump was involved. Why would the pre-jury you've
designed be any less foolish?

- Andrew

In article t,
Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor.

You wouldn't be in Washington State by any change would you? We just
had several family practice MDs in the eastern part of the state stop
delivering kids because of increases in insurance due to law suits.
I would like to think that it's not the number of law suits per say,
but those one or two 'key suits' that change the environment.

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote in message
...
In article t,
Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually
leaving
our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor.

You wouldn't be in Washington State by any change would you? We
just
had several family practice MDs in the eastern part of the state stop
delivering kids because of increases in insurance due to law suits.
I would like to think that it's not the number of law suits per
say,
but those one or two 'key suits' that change the environment.

I'm in an Eastern State. As I understand it, it is indeed the volume.
I'm not all that familiar with the particulars in the medical situation
aside from what I'm hearing from the doctors I know personally, but I
have seen the costs in the aviation industry soar through the roof as
aviation has been decimated by lawyers through my tenure in the
business.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
then
what is? Being vague?


My lay knowledge of class action tort is that it is damage to a group
or class of people. Seems to me our flying community (not just the newsgroup
but the community as a whole) constitutes a class. Seems to me that our
class is damaged every time an exhorbitant settlement or even judgement
occurs. In many cases, the settlement seems more like extortion than
justice. In the end, we are damaged because insurance costs skyrocket; We
are damaged in that vendors leave the aviation business resulting in higher
parts costs due to restricted competition. We are damaged because aircraft
manufacturers jack prices to cover their insurance. We are damaged when more
restrictions are placed on our flying. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.....
Seems to me an actionable tort lies in there. I know we must have a
legal pundit or two in our group -- what say you?
I s'pose the biggest problem would be to find a lawyer willing to sue
another lawyer.

Well..... That felt good.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 at 19:02:47 in message
, Philip Sondericker
wrote:
Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
what is? Being vague?

Perhaps it is not so much a matter of defining frivolous, as defining
how much responsibility individuals are expected to take for their own
protection. The reasonable man should assume that the pavement (sorry
sidewalk) may have badly aligned slabs. If he trips he should have kept
a better look out. Individuals should accept responsibility for
undertaking somewhat hazardous activities.

Should G.A. be accepted as a personal risk for example? We are entitled
to believe that public transport is responsible for our safety. If we
are passengers we should not be able to sue the private pilot unless we
have been deceived although a third party causing an accident would be
different.

Of course that approach might be bad for G.A. Anyway?

(UK TV has nightly adverts from legal firms asking if you have had an
accident and offering no-win no-fee terms. We seem to have inherited all
your litigation bad habits over here in the UK .)

;-)
--
David CL Francis

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
what is? Being vague?


It's not only a matter of frivolous, it's also a matter of a complete
lack of logic an common sense. Just look at the recent suit where the
vacuum pump manufacturer got burned at the stake even though the
vacuum pump performed as advertised. How that can happen is beyond
what my feeble mind can process.

Rich Russell