1999 Arlington crash jury award

This one really has me bothered: 1999 NWEAA Arlington Fly-in, pilot in RV-6
rushes departure at high angle of attack, crashes, dies in the ensuing fire.
His survivors sue EAA and NWEAA claiming the fire crews didn't get there
soon enough. The stated claims don't even agree with the NTSB report.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194197

If this award stands, things are worse than I thought.

Kevin

What I can't believe is there is no video of the event to show the
response time. There had to be thousands of people .there and more
then one camera... It just shows the the jury system has some serious
faults. It would have been nice if the widow would admit her husband
was showing off his new toy and had the classic departure stall while
trying to impress the crowd with the planes climb rate. Surely this is
not the fault of the EAA.....

Off my soapbox.

Ben

Kevin Davidson wrote:
This one really has me bothered: 1999 NWEAA Arlington Fly-in, pilot in RV-6
rushes departure at high angle of attack, crashes, dies in the ensuing fire.
His survivors sue EAA and NWEAA claiming the fire crews didn't get there
soon enough. The stated claims don't even agree with the NTSB report.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194197

If this award stands, things are worse than I thought.

Kevin

On 12 Jan 2007 07:17:57 -0800, "stol" wrote:

Kevin Davidson wrote:
This one really has me bothered: 1999 NWEAA Arlington Fly-in, pilot in RV-6
rushes departure at high angle of attack, crashes, dies in the ensuing fire.
His survivors sue EAA and NWEAA claiming the fire crews didn't get there
soon enough. The stated claims don't even agree with the NTSB report.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194197

What I can't believe is there is no video of the event to show the
response time. There had to be thousands of people .there and more
then one camera... It just shows the the jury system has some serious
faults. It would have been nice if the widow would admit her husband
was showing off his new toy and had the classic departure stall while
trying to impress the crowd with the planes climb rate. Surely this is
not the fault of the EAA.....

There is some video, as the local TV stations showed a clip of the airplane
burning.

The local rumor mill suggests the pilot had secured the right-side stick with
the seat belt. The accident occurred just prior to the start of the air show,
folks suspect the pilot was rushing to get off the field before the tower closed
down the traffic.

The jury award, I guess, boils down to expectations. I've been to major league
baseball games, for instance, and you can usually see an aid car at the stadium,
on the grounds that out of a crowd of 50,000 people, someone is probably going
to require medical attention. The jury apparently felt it was reasonable to
expect an event attracting thousands of airplanes to have a dedicated
fire/rescue unit.

There was a fire station on the airport grounds, but it was a normal city
station, not specifically for the airport and certainly not dedicated to
supporting the fly-in. I don't know if it had a separate door for letting the
trucks onto the airport itself, or if the fly-in had a means other than calling
9-1-1 to summon the fire department. If the answer was "no" to both questions,
that means that the summons for help would have had to go through the 9-1-1
dispatcher and the trucks would have had to drive around the outside of the
airport to the nearest gate. If so, it would explain the reported six-minute
reaction time.

But considering that the air show itself was about to start, I would be
surprised to discover there wasn't a fire/rescue vehicle standing by. You'd
think the fly-in's insurance would have required it.

I was in the announcer tower during another accident, and the fly-in's reaction
was speedy and efficient. There was a radio code used to notify persons of an
accident. I suspect the fire station was at least given a radio on that net.

There's a more detailed article on the lawsuit at:

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/app...73268827728753


Ron Wanttaja

A cool thing you might not know: The NTSB reports are not
admissable in a brawl like this. Can't cross examine the
NTSB, so they are out. Leaves the plantiff to make
up anything they can sell to the jury.

Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.

Bill Hale


Kevin Davidson wrote:
This one really has me bothered: 1999 NWEAA Arlington Fly-in, pilot in RV-6
rushes departure at high angle of attack, crashes, dies in the ensuing fire.
His survivors sue EAA and NWEAA claiming the fire crews didn't get there
soon enough. The stated claims don't even agree with the NTSB report.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194197

If this award stands, things are worse than I thought.

Kevin

There was a fire station on the airport grounds, but it was a normal
city
station, not specifically for the airport and certainly not dedicated to
supporting the fly-in. I don't know if it had a separate door for letting the
trucks onto the airport itself, or if the fly-in had a means other than calling
9-1-1 to summon the fire department. If the answer was "no" to both questions,
that means that the summons for help would have had to go through the 9-1-1
dispatcher and the trucks would have had to drive around the outside of the
airport to the nearest gate. If so, it would explain the reported six-minute
reaction time.

But considering that the air show itself was about to start, I would be
surprised to discover there wasn't a fire/rescue vehicle standing by. You'd
think the fly-in's insurance would have required it.



Good question Ron...

Having witnessed 2 crashes at airshows already (Blue Angels F-4 at Lake
Charles, LA in 1974 and an FM2 Wildcat at Houston in 2003) its
something I'll definately be looking for in the future. I don't
remember much about the 1974 crash, other than the noise and fireball.
The FM2 crashed about 4 miles to the southwest of Ellington Field and
the airport fire trucks went by me and out the gate at 70+ mph.

I think I'll be adding a decent-sized fire extinguisher to my
spectator-control equipment this year. A cotton and spruce gilder would
go up like a torch if a cigarette landed on it.

Harry

wrote:
A cool thing you might not know:

I got an idea you don't know much.


The NTSB reports are not
admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.

Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
is not admissible in a court of law.


Can't cross examine the
NTSB, so they are out.

Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
other witness.


Leaves the plantiff to make
up anything they can sell to the jury.

Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.


Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.

That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote
(in article .com):


wrote:
A cool thing you might not know:

I got an idea you don't know much.


The NTSB reports are not
admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.

Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
is not admissible in a court of law.


Can't cross examine the
NTSB, so they are out.

Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
other witness.


Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a recent
Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street Journal.
The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more
'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is inadmissible, you
certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has
witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident, then
you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's lawyers
did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence.


Leaves the plantiff to make
up anything they can sell to the jury.

Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.


Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.

That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.


BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding the
truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they will not
always admit to it to outsiders). There are so many spectacular failures of
juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all. Juries are typically
draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society --
deliberately. Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to
serve on a jury. That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so
well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers.

C J Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote
(in article .com):


wrote:
A cool thing you might not know:

I got an idea you don't know much.


The NTSB reports are not
admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.

Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
is not admissible in a court of law.


Can't cross examine the
NTSB, so they are out.

Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
other witness.


Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a recent
Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street Journal.
The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more
'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is inadmissible, you
certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has
witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident, then
you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's lawyers
did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence.


Leaves the plantiff to make
up anything they can sell to the jury.

Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.


Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.

That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.


BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding the
truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they will not
always admit to it to outsiders).

Ah, then who is to find the truth, you? A judge? An LDS priest?



There are so many spectacular failures of
juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all.

Name some.


That is some wild ranting if I ever heard it, coming from you even.
You get no credit howling sweeping generalizations. You got one bad
verdict, but it was cleared a bit by a verdict in Santa Monica. The
other one you don't know and weren't there. Give us some more. You
won't, of course. So you can't cite but one bum case to sully all the
rest.


Juries are typically
draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society --
deliberately.

Cite?



Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to
serve on a jury.

Are you calling the American people stupid?

I've seen a few stupid juries, 99% of the ones I've seen are right
smart.



That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so
well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers.

Being incapable of getting fire-fighting equipment to the crash permits
a jury to find whether that constituted a failure to use due care by
the fly-in sponsors.
***********************************
In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce
in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC
5:442-43). ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a
monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the
trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her
maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a
worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More
fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce
and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized." (Zion in
the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press,
p.249)

---- what C. J. is still smarting over, explaining some of his
hatred for law and lawyers. Since lawyers came to mormondom, they
have been universally hated. BTW, Eliza and a few of Brigham's other
*57* wives sued and collected. Ah, the perils of statehood.

I have lived for sixty years in this , we call our home land .In that time
I have seen much in the ways of chipping at the wall of freedom .knowledge
is the first step . Morality is the second .Personal virtues falls . then
the rest is easy. Lawyers are the guardian people of the constitution today
..Every day people are too busy making a living to take time out of daily
life to fight anymore. All the Communist and socialist of the world have
converged in America and have changed our legal system to suite them . We as
Christians side step these issues because we despise confrontations . We
have been eaten by lions for Centuries . We are told from the pulpit to be
followers and forgive , turning the other cheek . Lawyers Make the laws ,
Lawyers change the laws, lawyers make possible the enforcement of the laws,
and it starts from the white house on down...EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO
THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER . And you still wonder why our justice system is
failing??? lookup the national lawyers guild and see under their
subsidiaries how many lawyers belong to the socialist movement.. ALL of
them.."jls" wrote in message
ups.com...

C J Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote
(in article .com):


wrote:
A cool thing you might not know:

I got an idea you don't know much.


The NTSB reports are not
admissable (sic) in a brawl like this.

Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer
is not admissible in a court of law.


Can't cross examine the
NTSB, so they are out.

Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report
appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any
other witness.


Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a
recent
Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street
Journal.
The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more
'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is inadmissible,
you
certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has
witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident,
then
you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's
lawyers
did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence.


Leaves the plantiff to make
up anything they can sell to the jury.

Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey.


Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth.

That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth.


BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding
the
truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they will
not
always admit to it to outsiders).

Ah, then who is to find the truth, you? A judge? An LDS priest?



There are so many spectacular failures of
juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all.

Name some.


That is some wild ranting if I ever heard it, coming from you even.
You get no credit howling sweeping generalizations. You got one bad
verdict, but it was cleared a bit by a verdict in Santa Monica. The
other one you don't know and weren't there. Give us some more. You
won't, of course. So you can't cite but one bum case to sully all the
rest.


Juries are typically
draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society --
deliberately.

Cite?



Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to
serve on a jury.

Are you calling the American people stupid?

I've seen a few stupid juries, 99% of the ones I've seen are right
smart.



That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so
well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers.

Being incapable of getting fire-fighting equipment to the crash permits
a jury to find whether that constituted a failure to use due care by
the fly-in sponsors.
***********************************
In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce
in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC
5:442-43). ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a
monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the
trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her
maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a
worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More
fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce
and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized." (Zion in
the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press,
p.249)

---- what C. J. is still smarting over, explaining some of his
hatred for law and lawyers. Since lawyers came to mormondom, they
have been universally hated. BTW, Eliza and a few of Brigham's other
*57* wives sued and collected. Ah, the perils of statehood.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:18:37 -0600, "wes marso" wrote:

EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER.

Dubya has a history degree. Our mayor is a retired banker.

Ron Wanttaja