Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On Dec 2, 1:49 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
--
Jay Honeck


Here are the facts:

1. Pltf, age 79, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup.
2. She was passenger in the car; she placed the cp between her legs
to hold it whhile sh added cream and sugar.
3. As she removed the lid, the contents spilled on her legs.
4. Her sweatpants absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
A surgeon determined that she suffered 3rd degree, full thickness,
skin burns over 6% of her body, specifically her inner thighs,
perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin area..
5. She was hospitalized for 8 days, undergoing skin grafting.
6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
the extent and nature of the hazard.
7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
and 190 F.
8. They admitted that they had made no effort to study the safety
issues of this temperature.
9. Other establishments typically serve it around 135-140 F.
10. McD enforces its rule to hold the temp at 185 +/- 5 deg.
11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
was not fit for human consumption.
12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.
13. An expert on thermodynamics testified that liquids at 180 F would
cause full thickness skin burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
14. The evidence also established that as the temp increases over
155, the extent ofthe burn increases exponentially.
15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
16. The plaintiff had initially offered to settle for $20,000.00.
17. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but it was
reduced to $160,000 due to plaintiffs's own contributory negligence.
18. The jury ruled for $2.7 mmillion punitive damages, which equals 2
days' of McD's coffee sales.
19. The COurt reduced the pun dam tto $480,000, even though
characterizing McD's conduct as reckless, callous and willful.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
the case.
7.

This has been going on for a very long time! Sue McDonalds because you spilled coffee on your lap? Sue Parker because
the pilot followed a failing gyro into the ground? This is not new news, and the sheep in the USA simply eat it up,
because maybe, just maybe, their ticket will come in and they, too, can hit it big! It is the lotto mentality that is
dragging us down. No wonder there are so many jobs available for the immigrant worker; many americans simply don't think
they need to do a hard days work, and that they are entitled to a better life without doing the work...

Well put, I have been amazed at how many people seem to think that
they can become millionaires happily sipping coffee at the bookstore
and watching the value of their homes go up 20% each year! Now that
the bubble has burst there are many who think that the government
should come to their rescue!

Except for the fact that the passengers were all skydivers, skydiving had
nothing to do with the accident. An unfortunate title for the thread.

Bob Gardner

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:
The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was one
of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are suing
Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane is
not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in question
did have boots.

So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane in
direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
Cessna's operating instructions.

If this is true, you are viewing what has become one of the prime reasons
associated with the virtual end of General Aviation as at least I knew it
for the first 25 years I was involved in aviation.
It's the trial lawyers. They will go after anything and everything with
deep pockets involved in an accident. They operate in conditions like
these on the premise that REGARDLESS of the appropriate and inappropriate
actions of a pilot, if one screw was out of place on the aircraft itself,
the manufacturer can be litigated for financial gain.
In many cases, it is my understanding that manufacturers simply "settle"
the suits rather than defend them based upon specific lawyers reputations
for their ability to sway juries.
It's nothing but sheer extortion in the majority of the cases.

A truly unfortunate aside to this "practice" is that the phony litigations
are so frequent and so costly, there is a very good chance that the
legitimate cases where there actually is just cause for a lawsuit are
often looked at in the same jaundiced eye by the public as the phony cases
and true justice can suffer.
The lawyers can be "congratulated" for literally destroying not only GA,
but for the most part, the publics' faith and dependence in a true and
honest justice system.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:07:39 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was
one of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are
suing Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane
is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
question did have boots.

So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
Cessna's operating instructions.

Cessna Caravans can have known icing equipment factory and aftermarket
installed, are you sure this one wasn't so equipped?

Caravans and icing aparantly have a probematic history, going back at
least to AD 2006-01-11R1 which required that additional boots on cargo
pods and handles to make upper wing inspection easier be isntalled,
plus various things I've read but can't recall where right now about
changes to icing procedures WRT minimum airspeeds etc.

On Dec 1, 8:03 pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
Caravans and icing aparantly have a probematic history, going back at
least to AD 2006-01-11R1 which required that additional boots on cargo
pods and handles to make upper wing inspection easier be isntalled,
plus various things I've read but can't recall where right now about
changes to icing procedures WRT minimum airspeeds etc.

There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
(2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
current with aviation should know that.

2007-10-15:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...7?OpenDocument

Dan

On Dec 2, 11:32 am, wrote:

There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
(2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
current with aviation should know that.

Dan, thanks for posting something aviation related on this thread (As
opposed to Jay's OT BS). It has been a long time since I have flown a
Caravan so I am not going to try to be an expert here. Unfortunatly
the Caravan isnt the only Turboprop with poor icing performance
(Remember the ATR). There are several others that I have flown that
are downright scary in icing conditions. Maybe it is an inherent
problem in Turboprpops. Thanks for the link.
F Baum

"F. Baum" wrote in message ...
On Dec 2, 11:32 am, wrote:

There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
(2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
current with aviation should know that.

Dan, thanks for posting something aviation related on this thread (As
opposed to Jay's OT BS). It has been a long time since I have flown a
Caravan so I am not going to try to be an expert here. Unfortunatly
the Caravan isnt the only Turboprop with poor icing performance
(Remember the ATR). There are several others that I have flown that
are downright scary in icing conditions. Maybe it is an inherent
problem in Turboprpops. Thanks for the link.
F Baum

The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...

On Dec 2, 2:30 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:

The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...

So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
through known ice is forbidden. What does FedEx do with their Caravans
when the weather is less than CAVU? Ground them?

I quote the first paragraph from a Transport Canada Service Difficulty
Alert:

"Cessna 208 (Caravan) Series - Operation Into Known or Forecast Icing
Conditions

"The Cessna Model 208 and 208B (Caravan) airplanes (C208), when
appropriately equipped, are certified for flight into the continuous
maximum and intermittent maximum icing conditions specified in Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) 25, Appendix C, in accordance with FAR
23.1419. However, there have been numerous documented cases of icing
related accidents/incidents involving the operation of the C208."

Read the rest at http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/ce...rt/2006-01.htm

Dan

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:30:37 -0500, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"F. Baum" wrote in message ...
On Dec 2, 11:32 am, wrote:

There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
(2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
current with aviation should know that.

Dan, thanks for posting something aviation related on this thread (As
opposed to Jay's OT BS). It has been a long time since I have flown a
Caravan so I am not going to try to be an expert here. Unfortunatly
the Caravan isnt the only Turboprop with poor icing performance
(Remember the ATR). There are several others that I have flown that
are downright scary in icing conditions. Maybe it is an inherent
problem in Turboprpops. Thanks for the link.
F Baum

The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...

The Cessna Model 208 and 208B Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) and
FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)Supplement S1 "Known Icing
Euipment" begs to differ.

So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
Cessna's operating instructions.

I guess it makes more sense to sue a functioning company instead of a
dead pilot.. unlikely the dead pilot would be willing or able to shell
out a few million dollars as settlement.