Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

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.

No question about it, we need tort reform in the USA.

That said, people have also changed.

Lawyers need plaintiffs in order to sue, and the plaintiff is the real
villain in this scenario in my opinion. If the plaintiff wasn't willing to
initiate an action simply out of greed or the promise of easy money, the
suit would never be filed.

A lawyer is a tool, and you don't blame the hammer when you hit your thumb.

BDS

"BDS" wrote in message
. net...


No question about it, we need tort reform in the USA.

That said, people have also changed.

Lawyers need plaintiffs in order to sue, and the plaintiff is the real
villain in this scenario in my opinion. If the plaintiff wasn't willing
to
initiate an action simply out of greed or the promise of easy money, the
suit would never be filed.

A lawyer is a tool, and you don't blame the hammer when you hit your
thumb.


I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people seeking
recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get involved
with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they help
base on yeild, not justice.

"Maxwell" wrote

I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people seeking
recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get involved
with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they help
base on yeild, not justice.

Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are out
there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window if
the price is right.

BDS

BDS wrote:
"Maxwell" wrote

I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people seeking
recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get involved
with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they help
base on yeild, not justice.

Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are out
there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window if
the price is right.

BDS


I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;
Although it's true that the plaintiff has to want the lawsuit, one has
to consider that in considering the plaintiff side of the equation, one
has the entire population to consider. It's reasonable to assume that
within that population there will be a considerable amount of potential
plaintiffs seeking unreasonable, trivial, and financially inspired
litigation.
In other words, on the plaintiff side, you will always have a willing
and unethical base seeking financial gain.

On the attorney side, we supposedly have an educated, ethical base,
steeped in honesty, integrity, and legal knowledge.

For a lawsuit to occur, regardless of the reason, if a million dishonest
plaintiffs approach the bench and seek litigation, it is the lawyer who
makes the litigation possible. You can have an unlimited supply of
people seeking a lawsuit, but it still takes that lawyer to file it.

In summation, I have long ago come to the conclusion that although I
completely recognize and accept an unethical plaintiff base, when it
comes to the relegation of responsibility for the terrible mess the
legal profession has become in the United States, one has to comclude
that it is incumbent on the lawyers not the population to control any
unethical plaintiff base and to me it has become perfectly clear that
the lawyers not only have failed to control this unethical base, but
have gone to extreme ends to encourage it and take active advantage of
it for their own financial gain.

To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
BDS wrote:
"Maxwell" wrote

I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people
seeking
recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get
involved
with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they
help
base on yeild, not justice.

Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are
out
there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window
if
the price is right.

BDS


I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation a
lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;
Although it's true that the plaintiff has to want the lawsuit, one has to
consider that in considering the plaintiff side of the equation, one has
the entire population to consider. It's reasonable to assume that within
that population there will be a considerable amount of potential
plaintiffs seeking unreasonable, trivial, and financially inspired
litigation.

Lawyers are, but their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think they
can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been "harmed" to
a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
BDS wrote:
"Maxwell" wrote

I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people
seeking
recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get
involved
with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they
help
base on yeild, not justice.
Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are
out
there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window
if
the price is right.

BDS


I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation a
lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;
Although it's true that the plaintiff has to want the lawsuit, one has to
consider that in considering the plaintiff side of the equation, one has
the entire population to consider. It's reasonable to assume that within
that population there will be a considerable amount of potential
plaintiffs seeking unreasonable, trivial, and financially inspired
litigation.

Lawyers are, but their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think they
can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been "harmed" to
a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.



I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;

To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
(But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
interesting.
FB

--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

F. Baum wrote:
On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;

To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
(But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
interesting.
FB
--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It's true the issue is quite complex and as such assigning it a single
failure statement might be excessive.
I spent considerable time involved with flight safety issues including
active accident investigation. I've been exposed to a fairly wide
spectrum of these issues myself.
This being said, I believe I understand your point clearly and accept
some compromise on basic premise.
I am still left with the basic study of the litigation equation that
states several initiation assumptions;

The plaintiff can seek a law suit but no suit can occur without a lawyer.
This scenario can be either ethical or unethical, but if unethical, the
responsibility lies with the lawyer as by simple deduction, the
unethical suit can and should be refused by the lawyer regardless of the
insistence or incentive of the prospective client.

And this just covers the scenario where the plaintiff makes the initial
contact.

Now considering the second alternative; that being the lawyer actively
seeking a plaintiff and we have an unethical scenario by definition.
Lawyers seeking litigation are initiating or attempting to initiate an
action that requires a plaintiff. In seeking that plaintiff, I see a
clear violation of ethical standard.

Now take the worst case scenario, which by mere chance I am witnessing
tonight as we speak.
I just finished listening to a radio commercial where an attorney is
advertising for people to "become familiar" with a fact that "the credit
card companies don't want you to know"; that fact being that you can pay
the credit card company much LESS than you actually owe them with no
penalty. This attorney is actively seeking clients to defraud a credit
card company while making a fee for the service.
This type of lawyer advertising should be illegal but is allowed under
laws passed by the same lawyers doing the solicitation.
This behavior is well beyond the pail and is wide spread in the legal
community.
To me at least, it is THIS type of activity by the legal profession that
has taken the justice out of the system and replaced it with nothing
more or less than a pure legally sponsored money making machine.


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques writes:
To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

Another take: in Canada, this problem of frivolous lawsuits does not
exist to anywhere near the degree that it exists in the US.

Why? In Canada if you want to file a lawsuit, you have to hire a
lawyer. And pay them. They must be paid the same amount, whether
they win or they lose. (I think you can sue for legal fees -- but if
you lose that lawsuit, you now have to pay your lawyer for that too.)
If you can't afford a lawyer, and you have been wronged, you can apply
for legal aid -- and the most worthy of those applicants will get a
free lawyer.

The net result: plaintiffs won't sue unless they stand a good chance
of winning. Lawyers don't go sniffing for business on longshot cases.
Insurance rates are much lower. The courts are less busy. The
downside of this system: if you are poor and are wronged, it is
somewhat harder to get compensated. But for some reason it all seems
to work out just fine...

So perhaps the problem in the US is neither the plaintiffs or the
lawyers, but the system itself -- it rewards bad behaviour, and as
long as it does this then the unethical plaintiffs and lawyers will
continue to be attracted to these rewards.

Chris

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:
To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

Another take: in Canada, this problem of frivolous lawsuits does not
exist to anywhere near the degree that it exists in the US.

Why? In Canada if you want to file a lawsuit, you have to hire a
lawyer. And pay them. They must be paid the same amount, whether
they win or they lose. (I think you can sue for legal fees -- but if
you lose that lawsuit, you now have to pay your lawyer for that too.)
If you can't afford a lawyer, and you have been wronged, you can apply
for legal aid -- and the most worthy of those applicants will get a
free lawyer.

The net result: plaintiffs won't sue unless they stand a good chance
of winning. Lawyers don't go sniffing for business on longshot cases.
Insurance rates are much lower. The courts are less busy. The
downside of this system: if you are poor and are wronged, it is
somewhat harder to get compensated. But for some reason it all seems
to work out just fine...

So perhaps the problem in the US is neither the plaintiffs or the
lawyers, but the system itself -- it rewards bad behaviour, and as
long as it does this then the unethical plaintiffs and lawyers will
continue to be attracted to these rewards.

Chris

Brian;

I always have had a soft spot for our Canadian friends. You folks are
just good people up there. It was my honor to be invited to fly with
your Snowbirds as their guest and the time I spent with the team was
some of the best time I've spent in professional aviation.

Your post here has logic and I agree with what you have said. The system
is indeed bad down here and in need of drastic reform. It is truly
unfortunate that those we would entrust to reform it are those most
affected by any reforms.
I honestly believe that these much needed reforms will never see the
light of day, and it truly saddens me as an American to have had this
opinion forced upon me by those I would much rather have respected as
I've made my way through life.


--
Dudley Henriques