Arlington Fly-In Lawsuit Reversed

On Oct 16, 4:51*pm, Charles Vincent wrote:
Denny wrote:

As far as the motivation for the suit goes, I am guessing that since
Corbitt RETIRED from Microsoft in 1988 at the age of 37 and bought a
plane he was one of many Microsoft millionaires and the widow was not
just chasing the money. She was probably more motivated by outrage
that her husband died horribly in full view of spectators and emergency
personnel and if event coordinators had arranged for a properly trained
and equipped crew to be there it might have turned out very differently


Come on man... Her husband died from his own stupidity. Whether it was
a departure stall from lack of proper airspeed or he really did leave
the seat belt attached to the stick for gust protection and missed
that very important fact during his hurried attempt to take off .
Whatever the reason, he was responsible for the safety of that
flight,,, he failed in that area big time. I still feel that the
hundreds of spectators who were forever mentally scarred by that crash
should sue the widow for mental anguish because of her husbands
failure to fly his plane properly.....

My gut feeling is, at 37 and retired as a millionaire the chances are
good the family lived high on the hog and ****ed away alot of that
money. Only a good and accurate financial statement will spell that
out and you can bet that fact was glossed over during the trial to
prevent the facts from coming out to show the true motive of the
surviving family to cash in. That one suit has forever changed the
airshow business and it was not for the better... YMMV..

Tailwinds...

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:45:07 -0700 (PDT), stol wrote:

Come on man... Her husband died from his own stupidity.

No, he was *injured* by his own stupidity. He was alert and talking to the
first people who arrived on-scene but died, fully conscious, when flames
eventually engulfed his aircraft. Fly-in volunteers had kept the flames back
until their portable extinquishers ran out. A faster response by trained,
equipped rescuers would have got him to the hospital alive. The legal question
was whether the fly-in or the city should have had a faster response available,
not who was at fault in the accident itself.


Ron Wanttaja

On Oct 16, 7:24*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:45:07 -0700 (PDT), stol wrote:
Come on man... Her husband died from his own stupidity.

No, he was *injured* by his own stupidity. *He was alert and talking to the
first people who arrived on-scene but died, fully conscious, when flames
eventually engulfed his aircraft. Fly-in volunteers had kept the flames back
until their portable extinquishers ran out. *A faster response by trained,
equipped rescuers would have got him to the hospital alive. *The legal question
was whether the fly-in or the city should have had a faster response available,
not who was at fault in the accident itself.

Ron Wanttaja

A faster response "might " have saved him... That was a big issue in
the case. My point is had he flown his plane properly and not crashed
then the legal system would not be churning through its bizarre
course. I still content the hundreds of innocent spectators who
watched a man burn alive are mentally scarred for life but for the
pilots stupidity. For that the estate with 10 million should have to
pay them all..... It is the ol saying,,, "live by the sword, die by
the sword.

Over and out.

stol wrote:

Come on man... Her husband died from his own stupidity.

And he paid the price.

That one suit has forever changed the
airshow business and it was not for the better... YMMV..


And that is the problem with ridiculous awards like that. It leads to
folks spending more time and effort figuring out how to dodge legal
responsibility and fix blame on someone else than owning up to how their
own actions may have made things worse and addressing them.

Charles