Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

I have two problems with this. First, professional educators (read NEA)
are a big part of the problem.

I keep hearing "the union is the problem" mantra. Around here, the only
interaction we have with the NEA is the fact that they have good liability
insurance, and good legal programs if things really turn to **** for a
teacher. That's it. I'm not quite sure how much of an influence they are,
anywhere. They sure are not much, here.

Second how are you going to have the parental oversite without the
elections? And if you only let parents run for the offices or worse only
let parents vote then you get into the whole taxation without
representation thing.

Yeah, there are things to be worked out, for sure. The thing is, I don't
think parents should have real control over any situation, or they will end
up being a board of education with a different name, which is not what I
would want to see.

The whole point is that professional educators that know education should be
running the show, with parents giving guidance and sugestions, only. No
real power. If everyone says what we have is not working, why not try
something new?

That is a problem with all elected governments. (talking about new people
coming on every two years)

Yes, but when the future of our next generation is at stake, we need
something better than what government as usual is giving us, don't you
think? Also, what I see from far too many board of education members, is
that they are there with an ax to grind, and that has no place in deciding
how our children are educated.

We need to see consistancy. The programs come and go so rapidly, no program
ever has a chance to succeed, before it is changed. Things take time to get
going, and see how they work. If they don't work, then change them, or toss
them out. Changing them because a new group has come on in control needs to
be changed.

Most school administrators come up from the ranks of teachers.

It is remarkeable how quickly they forget what is going on in the
classroom.

It does help when they were a good teacher, I will admit. The very worst
administrators are the ones that went straight through to administration
without ever spending any time in the classroom.

I admit that I do not have all the answers on improving education, unlike
some others that have been spouting their own line of fertilizer. I do feel
I know what some of the problems are, however, and many other teachers and
people that are close to education have echoed some of the things I have
stated. We all can't be wrong, can we?

If I did have all of the answers, or a majority of them, I would not be
teaching construction in NC, but instead would be upwardly mobile in the
national education scene. I am confident that I know that some things I
have heard will not work, though.
--
Jim in NC

On Dec 3, 3:45 pm, wrote:

If McDonald's had responded with, gee we are sorry that you got hurt,
but fresh coffee is hot and you should be more carefull in the future
and here's some coupons for happy meals, the outcome would have likely
been very different.

Funny, I'm thinking of insurance settlement checks that include a
"final settlement clause" on the endorsement line for the check.
Wouldn't it be funny to require that she endorse the free happy meal
coupons and that endorsement stated that this was a final settlement
of damages!!
Of course a jury may just ignore the settlement or a judge *may* rule
it as unconscionable, but it would be funny. "Look woman, you got your
damn happy meal, what more do you want from us?!"

-robert

Al G wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds
case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of

snip...


You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))

A wise man once said "In the United States justice system, you get just
about all the justice you can afford"



--
Dudley Henriques


Minor nit, Dudley, but I do believe it is a legal system. I think it
hasn't been a "Justice" system for some time.

Al G


Not a nit. I agree with you completely. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

I've been drinking coffee for over 35 years. To my knowledge, unless
you're buying one of those $4.00 iced mocha latte espresso
abominations from Starbucks, everyone expects coffee to be hot. In
fact it is HOT. The HOTTER, the better.

I don't drink coffee. Feh. So perhaps the following words are just the
mindless rant of a putz. No matter. I have experience with drinking
other hot liquids, and I know people whose taste buds are so deranged
that they believe coffee is meant to be ingested orally.

I don't know whether we differ on the specifics (of hot water) or on the
principle of expectations, so let me ask you a different question - is
there =any= beverage which is supposed to be (and expected to be) served
hot, that should not be served (or drunk) boiling hot - that is, at 211
degrees Fahrenheit (372.6 degrees in a more civilized system)? If so,
and you were served that drink in a Styrofoam cup, expecting it to be at
its proper temperature, and through some user error spilled it on your
daughter, and only =then= found out that the liquid was =so= hot that it
would boil over if it were taken up in an elevator, then, even granted
that the error in handling was yours, would you not feel that you were
mislead into handling the beverage less carefully than you would have
had you known beforehand that it wasn't just hot, it was goddamn boiling
HOT? The difference being that an error that might have caused pain and
a lesson, instead causes serious injury and perhaps blindness?

Or consider shooting a rifle with cartridges that make it kick back with
such force that it breaks your shoulder. Now, rifles are =supposed= to
kick back, anybody who shoots knows this. But these particular
cartridges (the same type you've used before) generates enough force
that the rifle breaks your shoulder and the bullet goes into the next
county, hitting an accordion player. You expected =some= kickback, but
not =that= much. You could have braced yourself better, but thought
that these cartridges were just like the others that came in the same box.

In both cases we're dealing with expectations which influence one's
actions. Sometimes the difference between reasonable expectations and
what is actually delivered are sufficient to be actionable. However, in
all cases it is easy to ridicule.

The JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge.
[...] THAT is where the problem is.

I think we can all agree with that.

You think? It's much more entertaining to make fun of lawyers.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, what you are saying here is that
the outcome of this trial can be directly laid at the feet of an
ill-advised reply by a single individual and a jury's interpretation of
this reply.

That was the lesson of this case. Regardless of how silly you think
someone's demands are you should always appear to have some sympathy.

So the ACTUAL verdict wasn't based on any reasonable conception of
justice at all but rather the jury's reaction to the MacDonald's reply?

Juries can do what they want. I think the combo of seeing the pictures
of the woman's deformity bothered the jury and then to see how callus
McD's was in responding to her made the jury mad. The verdict came
from anger in my opinion.

Interesting!! So the lawyer's success in litigating this case was not in
proving to the jury that this woman had suffered legitimate severe
damage that had truly hurt her and on THAT basis asking the jury to find
against MacDonald's, but rather it would seem the lawyers used her
damage simply as a tool to force the jury to compare the coldness of the
MacDonald's replies, thus building a case against MacDonalds in the
minds of the jury based on the attitude of the company rather than the
damage to the woman.
Interesting!
You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))

Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
of jury trials.

Its a jury of our peers and they can be idiots. Look at OJ or many
aviation related cases to see that.

-Robert

I can't help but wonder what the situation would produce for a totally
innocent man charged with a crime he didn't commit standing in front of
a judge about to pass sentence on him saying to that judge;
"Judge, you are the most stupid, idiotic, and just plain ugly human
piece of trash I've ever seen in my entire life."

I have always wondered about making the case for complete and necessary
judicial objectivity based completely and only on the facts when the
facts are presented in a scenario displeasing to the power of the law.

:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
question did have boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message .. .

Amazing how far off topic this group can get...

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
question did have boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."

"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

Amazing how far off topic this group can get...



Is that a challenge?


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

Amazing how far off topic this group can get...



Is that a challenge?


Bertie

;-)