If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
Quoted from aero-news.net
"Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2 million, according to the mediator in the case. The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger, was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were millions of dollars in property damage to the building. The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance, and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case. One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement. Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command. Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the building and personal injury. A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this tragic accident." Nice to see common sense prevailed here. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
Kingfish wrote:
Quoted from aero-news.net "Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2 million, according to the mediator in the case. The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger, was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were millions of dollars in property damage to the building. The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance, and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case. One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement. Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command. Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the building and personal injury. A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this tragic accident." Nice to see common sense prevailed here. Common sense? You mean forgetting about the $60 million that was nowhere to be gotten and settling for the $2 million which was everything gettable? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
On Oct 7, 10:08*am, Kingfish wrote:
Quoted from aero-news.net "Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2 million, according to the mediator in the case. The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger, was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were millions of dollars in property damage to the building. The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance, and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case. One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement. Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command. Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the building and personal injury. A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this tragic accident." Nice to see common sense prevailed here. But who was the Pilot in Command? If this was a training flight, it would be the CFI. If it was just for fun, then whatever the two pilots agreed on prevails. By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who should be sued. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
On Oct 8, 7:58*am, Stubby wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:08*am, Kingfish wrote: Quoted from aero-news.net "Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2 million, according to the mediator in the case. The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger, was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were millions of dollars in property damage to the building. The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance, and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case. One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement. Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command. Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the building and personal injury. A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this tragic accident." Nice to see common sense prevailed here. But who was the Pilot in Command? *If this was a training flight, it would be the CFI. *If it was just for fun, then whatever the two pilots agreed on prevails. * By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who should be sued. The OP indicates rational analysis was used -- if there are no assets available, why sue? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
On Oct 7, 8:07*pm, Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
Common sense? lol -- Meaning the plaintiffs dropped their ridiculous $60M product liability suit when it was determined the aircraft wasn't at fault for flying into a building. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
In article
, Stubby wrote: But who was the Pilot in Command? If this was a training flight, it would be the CFI. If it was just for fun, then whatever the two pilots agreed on prevails. By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who should be sued. Does that regulation hold sway once the plane has smashed into something expensive and is thus no longer airborne? I'm no lawyer, but I think that the FAA can't regulate civil courts' actions regarding damage on the ground, and I could see reasoning in such a case where it's determined that the instructor has some civil liability because he was in a position of responsibility even if the FAA says that the other pilot was PIC. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
In article ,
Jeffrey Bloss wrote: On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote: Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here, and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a proper result. Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation negligence except in theory. The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
Mike Ash wrote
The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it. Nope!! Legally can't be done..... NTSB Reports in Court. NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in court. More accurately, facts from the report may be used, but opinions may not. There are two reasons for this policy. First, the integrity of the NTSB’s investigation may be compromised if final reports were used as evidence. Second, the autonomy of the jury must be maintained during civil proceedings. If NTSB reports were used as evidence, some witnesses may be less forthcoming with information during the investigative process and could compromise the quality of the report by giving a more desired answer instead of an accurate answer to questions being asked of them. Additionally, the NTSB and the people involved with the report could be summoned to court to testify, which would prevent them from performing their normal investigative duties. Bob Moore |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M
In article 7,
Robert Moore wrote: Mike Ash wrote The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it. Nope!! Legally can't be done..... NTSB Reports in Court. NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in court. More accurately, facts from the report may be used, but opinions may not. There are two reasons for this policy. First, the integrity of the NTSB’s investigation may be compromised if final reports were used as evidence. Second, the autonomy of the jury must be maintained during civil proceedings. If NTSB reports were used as evidence, some witnesses may be less forthcoming with information during the investigative process and could compromise the quality of the report by giving a more desired answer instead of an accurate answer to questions being asked of them. Additionally, the NTSB and the people involved with the report could be summoned to court to testify, which would prevent them from performing their normal investigative duties. Good to know, thanks. However, I think my ultimate line of thought still works. If the NTSB can conclude this from the facts, the court can too. This crash seems to be fairly clearly the pilot's fault, whoever it happened to be at the time. The one tricky part is where they assign blame to both, but I don't personally see a problem with that either. Civil suits have a much lower standard of proof, after all, and placing responsibility for damages on the ground on both of the qualified pilots occupying the cockpit seems justified to me. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Recent C421 crash is related to Cory Lidle | jbskies | Piloting | 5 | December 5th 06 01:48 PM |
Winds A Factor In Lidle Crash | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 72 | November 10th 06 08:43 PM |
Lidle crash: who is wrong? | Blasto | Piloting | 57 | October 20th 06 08:05 AM |
Lidle, Langewiesche, and turns | Snidely | General Aviation | 16 | October 18th 06 03:10 AM |
Cory Lidle's Plane Crash into Building | [email protected] | Piloting | 1 | October 11th 06 11:00 PM |