The OSH Pool Party is just 30 days away!

jls wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


jls wrote:

I have never seen a judgment
awarded to an injured plaintiff when there wasn't some proof of
negligence
or defective design proximately causing the injury.

You haven't been paying attention to the Parker-Hanefin case, I take it?

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

If I were going to merchandise a mechanical gyro, George, I'd use 2004
technology, not ancient stuff from out of the 50's.

What gyros? Gyros didn't figure in this case.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...

Parker-Hannifin didn't make the gyro that failed in this case. As far as I
know Parker-Hannifin doesn't make any gyros. Parker-Hannifin made the
vacuum
pumps that run the gyros and the pumps didn't fail. Before you run down
someone else, get your own damn facts strait. Typical of a lawyer, twist
the
fact to suit your own argument and re-define terms until they are
unrecognizable to anyone else.

That explains Congress...both sides of the aisle and both houses.

"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
in article , jls at
wrote on 6/26/04 11:14 PM:


"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
in article , jls at
wrote on 6/25/04 9:34 PM:

I have never seen a judgment
awarded to an injured plaintiff when there wasn't some proof of
negligence
or defective design proximately causing the injury.

You need to get your nose out of those law books and take a look at the
real
world, you're living in a fantasy world.

Ah, my partisan friend, you need to furnish evidence it -- a case going
to
the jury without evidence of negligence -- has happened, otherwise be
thought of as shooting from the hip with a $2 pistol.

I haven't read much law since taking the bar in the 70's, haven't needed
to
all that much, but I've learned people's "facts" often lack substance
and
substantiation, and will twist the facts to suit their purpose. It's
always
good then to consider what one has at stake when one takes a position,
and
you rarely if ever have a pilot or CFI or aircraft owner or engineer or
owner of an FBO taking the side of a plaintiff like the Carnahan widow.

In the Carnahan case there was indeed testimony that the Parker-Hannifin
gyro failed, that P-H gyros had performance problems on other occasions
in
other aircraft, and therefore P-H had notice of a defect or defects
needing
to be cured. At any rate P-H settled, constituting an admission of
liability. The other character in this thread saying there was no
such
evidence is hanging his hat on AOPA's take of the evidence. You could
hardly say THEY are objective at AOPA in these controversies ---- about
as
objective as Michael Moore is about George Bush.

I just read another whiner complaining that the jury disregarded the
NTSB
report in the Carnahan case, but he is naive because ordinarily those
reports, just like a highway patrolman's report of an auto accident, are
and
always have been inadmissible as evidence before a jury. I'd be
willing
the bet the jury never saw the NTSB report, so that guy is writing
something
deceptive, something to mislead the reader, in order to justify his
position
against the lawsuit.

Then you hear, Oh, we're going to be priced out of the sky by these
lawsuits. They're so frivolous, and so costly and we'll never be able
to
buy another gyro ever again, and oh the sky is falling and oh these
trial
lawyers are ruining the world, sucking the very lifeblood out of general
aviation. Well buuuullll ****. The widow Carnahan was looking for 100
million and she got 4. Big deal.


Parker-Hannifin didn't make the gyro that failed in this case. As far as I
know Parker-Hannifin doesn't make any gyros. Parker-Hannifin made the
vacuum
pumps that run the gyros and the pumps didn't fail. Before you run down
someone else, get your own damn facts strait. Typical of a lawyer, twist
the
fact to suit your own argument and re-define terms until they are
unrecognizable to anyone else.

Apparently YOU haven't been confused, except as to the spelling of the word
"straight." Don't be nitpicking now or I'll have to nitpick back at you.


If I twisted the facts I didn't do it intentionally. Read this and the
accompanying material. I'm speaking of the gyros as the vacuum system, and
you will note that the article implicates gyroscope obsolescence:

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Publi...ahancrash.html

The point is that the jury found that the vacuum system failed or was
inadequate for its designed purpose and if there is anyone who can
accurately say there was no negligence by P-H, utterly no testimony of it,
he should provide proof thereof, not the speculation which has characterized
this sub-thread. Now please note that the NTSB found that the primary
attitude indicator was probably not functioning properly at the time of the
crash. Here, read for yourself:
"The NTSB accident report indicated there may indeed have been problems with
the primary attitude display, but said that secondary instruments were
probably functioning at the time of the crash."

The judge let the case against P-H go to the jury which awarded 4 million.
If you don't like him, impeach him. P-H withdrew their appeal and settled,
then settled with another estate not a party to the Carnahan lawsuit.
[This should answer Nauga's nattering too.]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


jls wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


jls wrote:

I have never seen a judgment
awarded to an injured plaintiff when there wasn't some proof of
negligence
or defective design proximately causing the injury.

You haven't been paying attention to the Parker-Hanefin case, I take
it?

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

If I were going to merchandise a mechanical gyro, George, I'd use 2004
technology, not ancient stuff from out of the 50's.

What gyros? Gyros didn't figure in this case.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

Fair enough on this vaguely relevant point and on the irrelevant point that
the jury verdict was reduced but read the material I provided for Bryan in
another post. I don't claim to be intimately familiar with the facts or
law of the Carnahan lawsuit, just made the so far irrefutable (and
unrefuted) point that a lawsuit doesn't get sent to the jury by a judge who
has not heard and made a note during the lawsuit of credible testimony and
evidence of negligence.

Bryan Martin wrote:

Parker-Hannifin didn't make the gyro that failed in this case. As far as I
know Parker-Hannifin doesn't make any gyros. Parker-Hannifin made the vacuum
pumps that run the gyros and the pumps didn't fail. Before you run down
someone else, get your own damn facts strait. Typical of a lawyer, twist the
fact to suit your own argument and re-define terms until they are
unrecognizable to anyone else.

And rely on the objectivity of twelve morons who couldn't find a
flimsy excuse to get out of jury duty....

jls wrote...

I'm speaking of the gyros as the vacuum system, and
you will note that the article implicates gyroscope obsolescence:

But the suit was against the vacuum pump manufacturer,
not the gyro manufacturer. The NTSB concluded that a single
attitude gyro failed, and that the vacuum system was functional.

Here, read for yourself:
"The NTSB accident report indicated there may indeed have been problems
with
the primary attitude display, but said that secondary instruments were
probably functioning at the time of the crash."

Right back atcha:
"...one of the vacuum gage system failure indicator buttons
exhibited evidence of having been in almost the fully retracted
position (the other indicator button was found in the partially
retracted position), which indicates that adequate vacuum existed
for the airplane's instruments to operate."

Dave 'forensic engineering' Hyde

snip

I realize the above won't silence the anal retentive critics,
but even Christ was noted for producing wine for a festive
occasion and then having the gall to advertise it in the Bible.

Of course, if he were alive today...
Critics would use the legal system to crucify him for it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Unka' BOb - Just say no to party pooper pool putzes

AMEN!

Don't you folks know that anything that is more than a couple of lines unsnipped
gets bypassed? Why in the hell can't you snip?

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Peach? You gonna bring PEACH? I was going to bring apricot. Let's see who can
stand the longest with a swap between us.

Jim


{;-)






-I will have Peach Muzzleloader at Oshkosh again this year for those adults who
-are not flying ,walking,standing ,speaking or in any way engaged in any
activity

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

jls wrote:

I don't claim to be intimately familiar with the facts or
law of the Carnahan lawsuit, just made the so far irrefutable (and
unrefuted) point that a lawsuit doesn't get sent to the jury by a judge who
has not heard and made a note during the lawsuit of credible testimony and
evidence of negligence.

Must be nice to live in a world in which judges are infallible and never allow
friendship or ignorance to affect their decisions.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.