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

ZZZooommm rant latest



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 8th 03, 02:00 PM
Michael Pilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
. ..
I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled

solely
for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
as I do.


SNIP

The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real
reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the
reason for the settlement. He has indicated, to my satisfaction, that the
reason behind the settlement was similar to the "preservation" information
expressed by a previous poster. That clearly is not something that
reasonable people would argue constitutes a "lose" situation. One could
argue that the plaintiff also "lost" since they did not get the huge
settlement that they felt a jury might award. I guess the old adage that
there are no winners, only losers in court probably applies. (Yes, I know,
someone will argue that there are winners - the lawyers. However, I am
thinking only of the plaintiff and defendant.)

Everyone else remarking about the "reason" behind the settlement (summarized
as win/lose, or, perhaps not-lose/lose) is simply speculating about things
not directly knowable. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I
must take Chuck at his word. Enough folks have expressed similar
experiences that clearly demonstrate "preservation" is a very strong
motivator in settling, not fear of losing because the facts are against the
defendant.

Michael Pilla


  #2  
Old September 8th 03, 08:10 PM
Juan E Jimenez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael Pilla" wrote in message
...

The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real
reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the
reason for the settlement.


So is the side receiving the settlement, Michael.

He has indicated, to my satisfaction...


No, he has suggested it. He knows he can't prove it. But he knows he can
rationalize it. If you're satisfied with that, that's your prerogative. I'm
satisfied with the fact the I've proven that he's been succesfully sued,
contrary to what he's implied.

Juan


 




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
Latest Pipistrel Motorglider Newsletter Uploaded Michael Coates Home Built 1 September 16th 03 06:04 PM
so what is the latest word on Sport Pilot ??? Gilan Home Built 12 September 7th 03 11:14 PM
Latest Ripon & Fisk (OSH) Updates Jim Weir Home Built 4 July 20th 03 10:59 PM
Latest Newsletter Michael Coates Home Built 3 July 15th 03 10:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.


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