Cirrus sued by Lidle's & Stanger's families

On 3/6/2007 12:36:08 AM, C J Campbell wrote:

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.

That is really unfortunate. Sorry to read that, CJ.

--
Peter

Just mention jury nullification, civil or criminal and
you're out.
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"BDS" wrote in message
et...
|
| "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
|
|

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:56 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.

I think you missed the point. Yes, we should have punitive damages.
However, they should not be a lotto ticket for the claimant. If a
regulator found a problem in the design would they randomly find a car
owner and give them the fine money? Why should the legal system work
that way???

-Robert

No I understood the point of the message I replied to exactly. Hell, I even
quoted it but I'll do so again.

Ash Wyllie wrote:

Better to just ban punitive damages.

C J Campbell wrote:
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.

Because you could very well find that many companies will find it cheaper to
pay the actual damages than fix a life threating problem.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Kingfish wrote:
I guess we all knew this was gonna happen...

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 claim the feds' data show Cirrus
aircraft having a history of aileron failures and other accidents
involving flight control failures. I've read about quite a few Cirrus
accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
system failure(?)

So they go after the engine mfr (did it quit on them?) and the
propeller mfr (did it fall off?) and the autopilot mfr (did George fly
them into the building?) The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.


I think the widow should sue the person who built the building. After
all, anyone with half a brain knows that building a building more than 3
stories tall is just asking for trouble with airplanes.


Matt

Might as well sue God for inventing the electromagnetic field since that
prevented the plane from passing through the building unscathed.

-----------------------------------------
DW

"chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
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??


Bloody Hell, this is why Americans think there is something wrong with
America!

What on earth could Hartzel do differently? No matter where this goes, they
have to defend themselves. No matter where that goes, the cost gets added to
the product. At what point does a lawsuit get labeled "Frivolous" We all get
to pay for this.

Al G

Would you sue a defenseless entity? Everybody knows God can't get a lawyer;
there are no lawyers in heaven (except Tony).

Jim



"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...



Might as well sue God for inventing the electromagnetic field since that
prevented the plane from passing through the building unscathed.

On Mar 5, 8:13 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
chris wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:07 am, "Peter R." wrote:
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.

--
Peter

I understand. It just seems that from what we see of the USA the
place seems to be filled with gung-ho rednecks who sue at the drop of
a hat.. Or that's how the media seems to portray it.. No offense to
those with normal coloured necks :-)

Actually, rednecks are about the least likely to sue. It is the rich,
urban folks that tend to sue. Rednecks have more direct ways to gain
compensation or extract revenge. :-)

Matt

My own observation is that just about anyone in a position to sue for
big bucks probably will.
After all, it's my turn!

On Mar 6, 7:39 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:

Because you could very well find that many companies will find it cheaper to
pay the actual damages than fix a life threating problem.

I find it difficult to paint with an overly broad brush...

I'm certain that there are far too many people who DO make such a
calculation.

I'm also certain that many calculate that the product won't sell at
all, or will be too expensive to sell, etc., if, for example, some
particular safety item were installed. (Look at Taser; they sell a
disabling item that cops can use instead of bullets. A lot of people
are alive because of this technology. A few are dead because of some
medical condition or drug use complication. But Taser gets sued. So
maybe the cops should have used the high-speed lead?????

I'm also aware that way too many people won't put on their seat belt,
but will then sue the city for putting the light pole too close to the
street. Some lawyer will take the case; some judge will let it go; and
some jury will feel sorry for them. And they'll get money because the
city was "X% negligent". Here's an idea: If the city is less than
50% negligent, the sue-er should be ordered to pay for the lamp post
instead of getting money.

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:02:22 -0800, Roger wrote
(in article ):

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.

I have a sister who got a speeding ticket thrown out of court by arguing
precisely that.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor