Cirrus sued by Lidle's & Stanger's families

On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:

I like the idea of lawyers not getting a cut of the punitive
damages!!!!!


Ideally, I agree. Practically, there is no way you would ever get
anything passed if the attorneys don't get a cut. The trail lawyers
groups can play the "big company" card. They claim any laws that
reduce punitive damages are just gifts to big corporations (which are
evil by nature) at the expense of the poor, the under privileges and
the unbathed.

-Robert

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:56:11 -0700, Gig 601XL Builder wrote
(in article ):

Ash Wyllie wrote:


Better to just ban punitive damages.



I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
should be levied.

Why? If actual damages are paid for then the company has behaved responsibly.
In fact, all warranties are based on the idea that it is cheaper to fix a few
flawed items than to prevent any flawed item from leaving the loading dock. A
warranty is nothing more than an insurance policy that the buyer is forced to
pay for.

I see no reason for punitive damages if the plaintiffs are being made whole.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:07:16 -0700, Peter R. wrote
(in article ) :

On 3/5/2007 3:08:03 PM, "chris" wrote:

This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
something wrong with Americans!

Um, it's not Americans, but rather the American legal system about which you
are complaining. As an American, I can tell you that I am just as ****ed off
about these types of lawsuits as perhaps the majority of us are. These types
of lawsuits have really changed our society for the worse over the last
thirty years.

If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I was
riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile pulled out of
a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right. I was unable to
avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted over the top of the
car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.

The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my medical
expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and didn't bother
suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite the fact that it
would have been an open-and-shut case.




Same here. I was riding my bicycle (I used to do triathlon) and a car coming
the other way turned left in front of me and hit me head on. The driver was
uninsured (she already had 7 outstanding traffic tickets, and got two more
because of the accident), so my uninsured motorist policy ended up covering
my medical bills and my homeowners policy replaced the $3000 bicycle. They
told me I was entitled to compensation for pain and suffering. I just
thought, what -- how much would I charge to allow someone to hit me with
their car? It was ridiculous. So I let it go. But the fact is it compressed
my spine, took away my ability to run, swim or ride, and left me with
annoying pain for the rest of my life. Luckily, I am still able to fly.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mar 5, 5:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Ash Wyllie wrote:

Better to just ban punitive damages.

I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
should be levied.

On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
should be levied.

One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.



My problem is not with the legal system, but with the judges who go
along with these frivolous suits. Don't they have the authority to
step in and say enough is enough?

On 5 Mar 2007 12:08:06 -0800, "chris"
wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" wrote:
"Kingfish" wrote

I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
the cause. Unbelievable.

They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when it
is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor up
the river that far, etc.

Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably was -
what a shocker.

BDS

Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
responsibility??

Are you kidding?

Over here if you get a speeding ticket it's the cop's fault for
following too close.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Nomen Nescio" wrote

From:

So that explains why at 42, I have never been called for Jury duty! I
am both an engineer and a pilot...

Same here. I've had to show up to sit in the jury pool nearly a dozen
times.

I am in the same situation (engineer and pilot) and was called to jury duty
a few years ago on a case that involved a lawsuit. During the questioning I
told them that I thought that there were too many frivilous lawsuits and
that the awards were ridiculous. I couldn't believe it - I got selected
anyway.

BDS

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Ash Wyllie wrote:

Better to just ban punitive damages.
I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
should be levied.

On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
should be levied.

One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.



My problem is not with the legal system, but with the judges who go
along with these frivolous suits. Don't they have the authority to
step in and say enough is enough?

Judges are no longer part of the legal system?

Matt

BDS wrote:
"Nomen Nescio" wrote

From:

So that explains why at 42, I have never been called for Jury duty! I
am both an engineer and a pilot...
Same here. I've had to show up to sit in the jury pool nearly a dozen
times.

I am in the same situation (engineer and pilot) and was called to jury duty
a few years ago on a case that involved a lawsuit. During the questioning I
told them that I thought that there were too many frivilous lawsuits and
that the awards were ridiculous. I couldn't believe it - I got selected
anyway.

You were obviously too transparent in your attempt to avoid jury duty! :-)

Matt

Anyone named in the initial action is no longer protected by time. If
you wait too long you can't file against anyone. You always name
anyone who could possibly be named in the first round. Usually you end
up with 1 or 2 named by the time you make an offer.

-Robert

Yup, the shotgun method of filing suit has me named as a 'sued
physician' - even though the judge ordered me dropped from the suit
for lack of involvement...
The fact that I had nothing to do with the person, that I wasn't even
physically in town during the week she was injured and hospitalized
and treated by other physicians, does not matter, I was named in a
suit and that is that...
26 years later I still have to report every year on insurance
applications, medical staff renewals, to the government, etc., that I
was sued in 1981...
God, I love our legal system...

denny

"Matt Whiting" wrote

You were obviously too transparent in your attempt to avoid jury duty!
:-)

I guess so. That probably also means that saying "I can tell guilty people
just by looking at them" won't work in a criminal trial either. :)

BDS