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

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"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". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works just
as well.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"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". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works
just
as well.

Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

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

in article t, Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 7:41 PM:


Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

You must have had some very bad experiences involving lawyers. I can respect
that. I myself have had very little experience of them either way, and none
of it particularly negative. I've also known one or two lawyers that I would
be quite reluctant to kill.

The first thing that needs to happen is people need to take responsibility
for their own actions and assume responsibility for the results of their
actions. It is amazing that judges will hear some of these cases but then
again- they are attorneys too. I think the real solution would be to limit
the awards to a reasonable limit by calculating potential income over the
person's lifetime for death or a percentage of loss due to injury. It's
obvious to most that Billy Joe Jim Bob who works at McDonalds for $7.00/hr
is not worth $10M when his potential income is calculated for his lifespan.
In the example above of the McDonald's woman, there should be no award
because of my first sentence: she chose to buy the coffee and put it between
her legs, no one held a gun to her head and forced her to take the cup and
on top of that, she would have been mad if it was cold. The current legal
climate is damaging many industries and will continue. Take for example
Parker which has left the aviation market after being sued for a vacuum pump
that did not fail in a fatal crash.






"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"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". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works
just
as well.

Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

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

In article hjmKc.118690$XM6.23791@attbi_s53, Robert Bates wrote:
person's lifetime for death or a percentage of loss due to injury. It's
obvious to most that Billy Joe Jim Bob who works at McDonalds for $7.00/hr
is not worth $10M when his potential income is calculated for his lifespan.

Not necessarily; I'm sure quite a few people worth $10M now once worked
at fast food restaurants as a teenager.

The problem with the amounts of money involved in lawsuits doesn't seem
to be the damages part, it seems to be the punitive part. The plaintiff
should only receive the money from the actual damages award - the
punitive part should be treated as a fine, or possibly held in trust -
where neither the lawyer nor the plaintiff gets it. Removing the chance
of making $millions from a lawsuit will deter fishing expeditions.

I have a confession to make - our family has sued someone. When I was
15, I was opening a door normally at school, but the glass (which didn't
meet building code) broke and did me a very serious injury [0]. My mother
had to take three months off work to take me into hospital every day for
3 hours of physiotherapy. However, the rewards was entirely consistent
with our loss - GBP 7,500 in 1987 money (probably about GBP 9000 - or
roughly US$12000 these days) - which covered unpaid time off work, fuel and
other expenses. I'm sure the same case in the USA would have
resulted in at lest $1M in damages. Fix the problem of excessive awards,
and the problem of frivolous lawsuits goes away.

[0] The glass broke and sliced through my wrist to the bone - all flexor
tendons cut, both arteries cut (lots of blood), several other cuts as
the glass fell out of the door frame. It required almost 7 hours of
microsurgery to fix in a specialist hospital, followed by 3 hours of
physiotherapy 3 hours per day, five days per week for 3 months.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

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