Another GA lawsuite

"James M. Knox" wrote in message ...

.... So it's just a matter of what an attorney can convince
the jury of that *might* have happened. Doesn't have to prove that his
scenario DID happen, just that it might have.


Actually, proving that it "might have happened" won't do. He has to
prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than
not" that it did happen.

Icebound wrote in message ble.rogers.com...
James M. Knox wrote:
...

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. ...

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

Essentially, yes; where the investigators, witnesses, etc can be cross
examined, and their conclusions examined under stricter standards.

"Kevin" wrote in message
news:heayb.257013$275.934649@attbi_s53...
A classic example of:

Just because you can buy it, doesn't mean you can fly it.


Happens with automobiles also. Around here a lot of people roll SUVs
because they think the "sport" means it's a sports car.

"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
Still not admissible because it is almost all hearsay.

Radar and radio records, training records, mechanical engineering analysis
of the wreckage. All heresay?

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
Still not admissible because it is almost all hearsay.

Radar and radio records, training records, mechanical engineering analysis
of the wreckage. All heresay?

They would be hearsay if not properly qualified as evidence. The reason
for the hearsay rule is to require examination of evidence in the crucible
of the adversary process. It avoids prejudice. If a document reciting
certain allegations is put into the record for the jury to consider as truth
of the matters recited therein, then the opposing side doesn't have much of
a chance to cross-examine the document, now does it? And that wouldn't be
fair to the opposing party.

OTOH, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Radar and radio records
could probably be put into evidence by the proper testifying custodian,
after he duly qualifies himself and the record.

An engineering analysis cannot be entered into the record simply by the
attorney who wants it entered saying, "We offer into evidence Plaintiff's
exhibit number 81. It must be duly authenticated and qualified in
accordance with the law of the jurisdiction.

Now let me ask you something. Let's say that engineering report is damning
to the Plaintiff's case, or to the Defendant's case for that matter.
Wouldn't it be better for the engineer who made that report be present,
sworn and examined before the jury, so that both sides can examine and
cross-examine him firsthand? Of course, the document can also be entered
into evidence and shown to the jury as corroborative of the engineer's
testimony.

I never tried an aircraft crash case, but did try quite a few auto accident
cases. The highway patrolman is one of your best witnesses because he
measures tire tracks, makes photographs, and is usually articulate about
injury to victims and damage to the motor vehicles. He can sometimes
recite what was told him by victims or witnesses at the scene, especially if
they show up at court and testify to something entirely different from what
they told him, or what he has observed. He is a particularly eloquent
witness if the defendant motorist happened to have been just about
knee-walking drunk.

So basically the hearsay rule makes the testimony of an out-of-court
declarant inadmissible when it is offered to prove the truth of the matters
stated therein. The rule is old and time-honored. Much of our tort law
and rules of evidence in the USA are older than the nation. They go back
to the common law of England.

"Larry Smith" wrote:

[Much interesting stuff]

Thanks for this, Larry. One final question... When you talk about the judge
dismissing at the end of the plaintiff's case, is this in front of the jury?
Or is there some preliminary hearing first? I was reading your "getting to
the jury" as referring to presenting the case (or part thereof) to a jury,
whereas rereading it, it could also mean getting to the jury for
consideration.

--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane

"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
They would be hearsay if not properly qualified as evidence. The reason
for the hearsay rule is to require examination of evidence in the crucible
of the adversary process. It avoids prejudice. If a document reciting
certain allegations is put into the record for the jury to consider as
truth
of the matters recited therein, then the opposing side doesn't have much
of
a chance to cross-examine the document, now does it?

Aha. Now I see what you're getting at. Now it makes sense.

So basically the hearsay rule makes the testimony of an out-of-court
declarant inadmissible when it is offered to prove the truth of the
matters
stated therein. The rule is old and time-honored. Much of our tort law
and rules of evidence in the USA are older than the nation. They go back
to the common law of England.

Your explanation cleared up my confusion and taught me a few things.
Thanks!

Larry Smith wrote:

How so, and what testimony do you foresee as inadmissible?

For example, there was a fairly famous suit against Piper. IFRC, Wouk was the
plaintiff's attorney. The pilot lost it somehow during an instrument approach.
The plane caught fire and the occupants who survived the crash (if any) burned
to death. Wouk argued that there was some sort of fuel problem that caused an
engine fire that caused the crash. The evidence used by the NTSB to determine
that the fire occurred *after* the crash was deemed inadmissible because it
was produced by Lycoming investigators who were "prejudiced".

The same judge ruled that a fictional videotape of all the people frying before
the crash was rule admissible, however. You can guess where *I* think the
prejudice lay in that case.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:00:42 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb"
wrote:


"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
Still not admissible because it is almost all hearsay.

Radar and radio records, training records, mechanical engineering analysis
of the wreckage. All heresay?


Peter.... although I am in your corner on this. In a court of law,
nearly anything can become inadmissible or tainted in some way. A
clever attorney could make Bob Hoover (possibly called as an expert
witness) look like he *really* knew nothing about flying.

Remember that *truth* and *logic* aren't on trial.... what can be
*proved* is. If you have never sat on a jury in an important case,
you should know that one job of the attorneys is to keep you ignorant
of all of the facts in the case... all legal and with a history
centuries old.

"The biggest joke is a jury of your peers...." which will NOT be
populated by a single pilot, A&P, dispatcher, anybody else that has
ever touched an airplane in any way.

Sickening..... but typical of the American justice system....

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:00:42 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb"
wrote:


"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...

Still not admissible because it is almost all hearsay.

Radar and radio records, training records, mechanical engineering analysis
of the wreckage. All heresay?



Peter.... although I am in your corner on this. In a court of law,
nearly anything can become inadmissible or tainted in some way. A
clever attorney could make Bob Hoover (possibly called as an expert
witness) look like he *really* knew nothing about flying.

Remember that *truth* and *logic* aren't on trial.... what can be
*proved* is. If you have never sat on a jury in an important case,
you should know that one job of the attorneys is to keep you ignorant
of all of the facts in the case... all legal and with a history
centuries old.

"The biggest joke is a jury of your peers...." which will NOT be
populated by a single pilot, A&P, dispatcher, anybody else that has
ever touched an airplane in any way.

Sickening..... but typical of the American justice system....

Yes, you can bet any one in the jury pool who was a pilot would be
unacceptable to the plaintiff's atty , and would be excused.