Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

On 4 Mar 2007 13:28:59 -0800, "Tony" wrote in
. com:


Someone said it's the 98% of the lawyers who give the others a bad
name. The real precentage isn't nearly that high, what needs damning
is the legal system the offers incentives for many of these lawsuits.



LAWSUITS FLYING IN LIDLE CRASH

The families of former New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his
flight instructor Tyler Stanger claim the crash of their Cirrus SR20
into a Manhattan apartment building was caused by a "catastrophic
failure of the flight control system." A statement released () by Todd
Macaluso, the lawyer representing the families of Lidle and Stanger,
claims that FAA and NTSB data show that Cirrus aircraft have "a
history of aileron failures" and "there have been other accidents
involving flight control failures, several of which resulted in
deaths." The suit also names Teledyne, Hartzel Propeller, S-Tec,
Honeywell and Justice Aviation. The NTSB has not yet determined a
cause for the Oct. 11 crash, but an update to its preliminary report
released in early November focuses on the role of a 13-knot crosswind
in the accident and makes no mention of control anomalies. Cirrus has
declined comment on details of the crash investigation. New York
television station NY1 says the cause of the crash will determine
whether Lidle's family gets a $1 million insurance payout from Major
League Baseball. Meanwhile, the owner of an apartment 13 floors above
the impact point is suing Lidle's family for $7 million, claiming the
crash ruined his home.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194589

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:09:47 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

provided, of course, that the obstacle database is
up to date and accurate.

I don't see what this has to do with an obstacle database. The
transponder on the obstacle will state where it is. That should be
sufficient (as long as it's not lying!)

There is no need to install a Mode S transponder on each and every
obstacle. If the Mode S equipped aircrafts' reported positions are
continually compared by ground-based computers against the coordinates
of obstacles. Then ATC could warn a pilot if the flight was too close
to them. That way, very little additional hardware would be required.
Just a thought.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

There is no need to install a Mode S transponder on each and every
obstacle. If the Mode S equipped aircrafts' reported positions are
continually compared by ground-based computers against the coordinates
of obstacles. Then ATC could warn a pilot if the flight was too close
to them. That way, very little additional hardware would be required.
Just a thought.

won't work in areas of poor radar coverage, which tends to be where you
need it (e.g., close to the ground)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

BDS wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.

No, they are not identical. This is a stawman that is designed to sidestep
the issue at hand.

Not at all. You are confusing disagreeing with your assessment of the
issue with sidestepping it. Nice try.


If the plaintiff files the lawsuit themselves, then no lawyer is
involved and I agree with your original assertion.

I said originally that the lawyer was partially to blame, but that the
primary blame belongs with the plaintiff. A plaintiff can stop a lawsuit
any time he or she pleases, or can choose not to start one in the first
place, and the lawyer is obliged to follow the client's wishes.

The lawyer isn't obliged to represent any client in a tort case the last
I knew. When did this change?


all lawsuits are actually filed by a lawyer and your claim is ridiculous
as the lawyer is intimately involved in the frivolous suit. Even worse,
it is usually the lawyer that tries to "blackmail" the defendant into
settling out of court, even though they aren't liable, just to save the
cost of defending themselves. This behavior completely rests on the
lawyers contrary to your claim. This is legalized extortion pure and
simple.

The final decision to proceed or settle always lies with the plaintiff, not
the lawyer. The final decision on what amount to settle for always lies
with the plaintiff, not the lawyer.

Most people don't have a clue if they should proceed or how much they
should ask for. This is all driven by the lawyer. Do you watch the
lawyer adds on TV? They constantly advertise about the size of the
awards they have earned for their clients and how they can do the same
for you. Are you a lawyer?


it or not, but I'm guessing not. I never suggested it was OK to be
involved in something morally wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous
idea? Oh, the same place you got the idea that lawyers are just
innocent bystanders in frivolous suits...

You place all the blame on the lawyers, courts, and judges. It seems that
you believe that the plaintiff is the innocent bystander when in fact the
entire suit could not even start without them.

Not at all. I clearly stated earlier than I believe juries are a key
part as well. I also believe that some plaintiffs are as well, but I
think that is a very small part of the overall problem and not even
close to being the primary cause as you claim.


A few years ago a construction van stopped suddenly at an intersection and
his unsecured ladder flew off the top of his truck into traffic. My wife
hit it going highway speeds as it flew out in front of her. We could have
claimed all sorts of bogus injuries just like the scumbags who want to make
a quick buck but only asked them to pay for the damage done to one tire.
The guy was flabbergasted. We chose not to participate in the bull**** and
guess what, because of that there was no lawsuit. Some time later my wife
nudged another vehicle at a stop light and barely marked the plastic trim on
the two vehicles. Guess what, the other woman sued claiming a dozen
injuries from the 5 mph accident, lost work time, etc., etc., etc., and the
insurance company paid her 5 figures. Do you think that would have happened
without her participation? Give me a break.

Good for you and your wife. That is the way the system is supposed to
work. You get compensated for your legitimate losses that were the
direct result of someone else's negligent action.

Who do you think gave her the idea that she could get all of this? I
very much doubt she dreamed that up on her own. It was either her
lawyer or watching too much TV.


People like to blame lawyers for all the bad things that happen with regard
to frivilous lawsuits, and believe me, I have no particular love for them.
However, the very same people who say that the system is messed up and do
all the complaining are the same ones who will sign on to a bogus suit if
they think they can cash in on it.

Not all, but I certainly believe the majority. Throw in the judges,
juries and a small number of nasty plaintiffs and you have our current
mess. I include the politicians as well, but since most are lawyers
they really fall into the lawyer category.


What it boils down to is that their moral compass is for sale at the right
price.

Yes, and the lawyers have largely helped set that price and encouraged
their clients to go after it.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Who do you think gave her the idea that she could get all of this? I
very much doubt she dreamed that up on her own. It was either her
lawyer or watching too much TV.

Exactly!! A lawyer may have given her the idea that she could get the
money, that's true. But, she is the one who ultimately decided to pursue
it. She could easily have decided that is was morally wrong to claim that
she had injuries that she really didn't have.

If some tells you that you can get some money if you lie and cheat, will you
lie and cheat? And, if you do, is it someone else's fault that you did, or
was it a choice you made?

What it boils down to is that their moral compass is for sale at the
right
price.

Yes, and the lawyers have largely helped set that price and encouraged
their clients to go after it.

Yes, some lawyers definitely do that. However, ultimately it is up to the
individual to decide whether their honesty is worth giving up for a pay out.
When they do it is sad that some think they can place the blame for that on
their lawyer.

BDS

Denny wrote:
I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
claiming defective design...
Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
\We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...

denny



SHe should be chastised and ridiculed for this. Unreal. The only one
to sure would be the estate of the CFI, if at all. The cfi's family and
Cory's families should sue each other.

This is as bad as the parker hannifin decision.

Disgusting.
Cirrus should figh - just on principle. It is time to take a stand and
not allow this to kill ga manufacturers a second time around.

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:28:59 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
:


won't work in areas of poor radar coverage, which tends to be where you
need it (e.g., close to the ground)

Good point.

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:42:02 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

claim the crash of their Cirrus SR20 into a
Manhattan apartment building was caused by a "catastrophic failure of the
flight control system."

Why can't I have a job where I can make up facts as I go along? What a
time saver that would be.

- Andrew

Larry Dighera wrote:


There is no need to install a Mode S transponder on each and every
obstacle. If the Mode S equipped aircrafts' reported positions are
continually compared by ground-based computers against the coordinates
of obstacles. Then ATC could warn a pilot if the flight was too close
to them. That way, very little additional hardware would be required.
Just a thought.


Please look at this pictu
http://www.flarm.com/pics/high_resol...Technology.bmp

You see the surrounding of the Lake of Lucerne with small (private) and
big aerial passenger tramways. This obstacles are all defined in the
database of Flarm.
I think this picture is an accurate reply to your thought ;-).

Why can't I have a job where I can make up facts as I go along? What a
time saver that would be.

Become a meteorologist.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.