Comair Accident pilot sues...

In article ,
Jim Stewart wrote:
This brings up an interesting question. Do
airlines generally cover personal claims against
their employees? I would think that unless a
crime was committed, they would.

Either way, it doesn't matter--you still pay for it.

I would agree that where there's negligence (as it appears there was in
this case), individuals and companies should be held accountable. But
who is really going to win in these lawsuits? Most likely, the lawyers
win and you (a completely uninvolved individual) pay for it.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
So, how much do you think YOU are goinf to save if the FO doesn't
do what he needs to do to defend himself?

What has the FO been charged with?

...defend himself from the possible civil claims against him.

What it boils down to is which insurance company is going to pay
what.


It seems that if he's responsible, the claims against him are valid.
He should accept responsibility and not try to shift blame onto
someone else. Keep in mind that companies don't pay for anything,
every dollar a company spends comes out of YOUR pocket.


If his lawyers didn't do everything possible to shift at least some of the
liability from their client they would be guilty of malpractice. And it
isn't just the FO that is sueing it is the widow of the captain as well.

And to say that companies don't pay for anything is silly. Comair for
example doesn't operate in a vacume. They can't raise thier fares just
because they get hit with a liability suit.

If you continue your logic out, nothing comes out of your pocket either
because you got your money from somewhere and so they are really footing the
bill.

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
If his lawyers didn't do everything possible to shift at least some of the
liability from their client they would be guilty of malpractice. And it
isn't just the FO that is sueing it is the widow of the captain as well.

So it's okay to lie, as long as it helps you out? Sounds like you're
either advocating or validating the worst sterotype for lawyers.


And to say that companies don't pay for anything is silly. Comair for
example doesn't operate in a vacume. They can't raise thier fares just
because they get hit with a liability suit.

Yes, they can, and yes, they do. Companies do not have their own money;
the only way companies get money is to accept what you give to them in
exchange for products or services.

A frivolous liability lawsuit does nothing but attempt to extort money
from the deep pockets of the company (or insurance company), which is
funded by the company's customers and investors, usually to the benefit
of the lawyers.

I'm all for holding negligent companies and individuals responsible
under the legal system. However, attempting to shift blame to a runway
lighting company or contractor who had absolutely ZERO honest liability
in this situation, is entirely frivolous. The accident was caused by
the mistakes of the flight crew, and inasmuch as that liability is
shared, by the company that employed them.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
If his lawyers didn't do everything possible to shift at least some
of the liability from their client they would be guilty of
malpractice. And it isn't just the FO that is sueing it is the widow
of the captain as well.

So it's okay to lie, as long as it helps you out? Sounds like you're
either advocating or validating the worst sterotype for lawyers.


And to say that companies don't pay for anything is silly. Comair for
example doesn't operate in a vacume. They can't raise thier fares
just because they get hit with a liability suit.

Yes, they can, and yes, they do. Companies do not have their own
money; the only way companies get money is to accept what you give to
them in exchange for products or services.

A frivolous liability lawsuit does nothing but attempt to extort money
from the deep pockets of the company (or insurance company), which is
funded by the company's customers and investors, usually to the
benefit of the lawyers.

I'm all for holding negligent companies and individuals responsible
under the legal system. However, attempting to shift blame to a
runway lighting company or contractor who had absolutely ZERO honest
liability in this situation, is entirely frivolous. The accident was
caused by the mistakes of the flight crew, and inasmuch as that
liability is shared, by the company that employed them.


This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it belongs.

On Aug 30, 9:25 am, Jonathan Goodish wrote:
I'm all for holding negligent companies and individuals responsible
under the legal system. However, attempting to shift blame to a runway
lighting company or contractor who had absolutely ZERO honest liability
in this situation, is entirely frivolous. The accident was caused by
the mistakes of the flight crew, and inasmuch as that liability is
shared, by the company that employed them.

While I am also convinced the flight crew was primarily at fault, I
can't agree that the lighting company/contractor had "absolutely ZERO
honest liability" in this situation. If you read the article, you
would know that:

On Aug. 25, 2006, the airport issued a notice to
pilots that "numerous lights" on the main runway
were out of service. That night, at 1:40 a.m. Aug.
26, Polehinke landed at Lexington on a flight from
New York. The captain of that flight told the
NTSB that only about an eighth of the edge lights
on Runway 22 were lit.

I don't think this is a huge stretch. If nearly 90% of the lights on
4/22 were out the night before, it would not seem strange that 100% of
them were out the next morning. They were not primarily responsible,
but I really doubt that they have "ZERO honest" liability.

Not an excuse, but another link in the chain.

Austin

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
If his lawyers didn't do everything possible to shift at least some of
the
liability from their client they would be guilty of malpractice. And it
isn't just the FO that is sueing it is the widow of the captain as well.

So it's okay to lie, as long as it helps you out? Sounds like you're
either advocating or validating the worst sterotype for lawyers.


And to say that companies don't pay for anything is silly. Comair for
example doesn't operate in a vacume. They can't raise thier fares just
because they get hit with a liability suit.

Yes, they can, and yes, they do. Companies do not have their own money;
the only way companies get money is to accept what you give to them in
exchange for products or services.

As Gig said, they don't operate in a vacuum -- they operate in an extremely
COMPETITIVE market that has little leeway for mistakes. For a company
operating on thin margins, such a hit may well prove fatal (no pun
intended). It's the economic version of Darwin's law (not to mention
Murphy's).


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY
--
“Nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding
the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental
advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve
to intimidate the public and even scientists...there is a clear attempt to
establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
- Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, (6-26-06)