Cirrus sued by Lidle's & Stanger's families

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.

Actually, if you want real legal reform all you would need to is to
cause punitive damages to go to someone/something other than the
claimant. The legal system makes the person whole through actual
damages (pain and suffering, lose of income, expenses, etc). Giving
punitive damages to this person never made any sense to me at all.
Allow attorneys to still collect a percentage of the punitive but the
rest should go somewhere else (even to the bottom of the ocean would
be better).

-Robert

Robert M. Gary opined

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

Actually, if you want real legal reform all you would need to is to
cause punitive damages to go to someone/something other than the
claimant. The legal system makes the person whole through actual
damages (pain and suffering, lose of income, expenses, etc). Giving
punitive damages to this person never made any sense to me at all.
Allow attorneys to still collect a percentage of the punitive but the
rest should go somewhere else (even to the bottom of the ocean would
be better).

But who?

If punitive awards go to the state, it would become a revenue source. How long
would it take for every trial end up with punitive damages?

Giving the money to charities would be better, but I suspect that there would
still be problems.

Better to just ban punitive damages.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

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.

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

Robert M. Gary wrote:
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

No I understood the point of the message I replied to exactly. Hell, I even
quoted it but I'll do so again.

Ash Wyllie wrote:

Better to just ban punitive damages.

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!!!!!

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.

On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:

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


Ideally, I agree. Practically, there is no way you would ever get
anything passed if the attorneys don't get a cut. The trail lawyers
groups can play the "big company" card. They claim any laws that
reduce punitive damages are just gifts to big corporations (which are
evil by nature) at the expense of the poor, the under privileges and
the unbathed.

-Robert

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:56:11 -0700, Gig 601XL Builder wrote
(in article ):

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.

Why? If actual damages are paid for then the company has behaved responsibly.
In fact, all warranties are based on the idea that it is cheaper to fix a few
flawed items than to prevent any flawed item from leaving the loading dock. A
warranty is nothing more than an insurance policy that the buyer is forced to
pay for.

I see no reason for punitive damages if the plaintiffs are being made whole.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:56:11 -0700, Gig 601XL Builder wrote
(in article ):

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.

Why? If actual damages are paid for then the company has behaved
responsibly. In fact, all warranties are based on the idea that it is
cheaper to fix a few flawed items than to prevent any flawed item
from leaving the loading dock. A warranty is nothing more than an
insurance policy that the buyer is forced to pay for.

I see no reason for punitive damages if the plaintiffs are being made
whole.

Because you could very well find that many companies will find it cheaper to
pay the actual damages than fix a life threating problem.