Arlington Fly-In Lawsuit Reversed

Several years back, the Arlington Fly-In and EAA were sued over an aircraft
accident. The initial judgment was against the fly-in, but the appeals court
has reversed it:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/in...me=595199M AJ

Ron Wanttaja

On Oct 14, 8:03*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Several years back, the Arlington Fly-In and EAA were sued over an aircraft
accident. *The initial judgment was against the fly-in, but the appeals court
has reversed it:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/in....showOpinion&f....

Ron Wanttaja

Lets hope this sticks and... the plaintiffs have spent all the money
and now they need to get a 10 million dollar loan to pay back the
people they wrongly stole it from....

While the appeals court ruled in favor of aviation, their (usual)
logic chopping just turns your stomach...
Whilst you and I look at it that the pilot is responsible for the
operation of his aircraft - period - the court went snooping through
all kinds of verdicts about businesses owing responsibility to
customers...
It basically said that the NWEAA is not liable ONLY because the
airplane crashed off the area of dirt that was under contract for the
show... Had it rolled up into a ball near the exhibit tents or in the
aircraft parking area it is likely that the court would have hit the
NWEAA with the entire $10M judgment - after correctly excusing the
EAA...

Our insane legal system turned out to be right this time, but only
through a fluke of logic chopping... Basically, anyone that has any
public event is liable for $10M (or lots more) if anything happens...
You have to be insane to hold a show, or to even have a birthday party
at your house... You are just begging to get anally penetrated by the
courts...

denny

Denny wrote:

While the appeals court ruled in favor of aviation, their (usual)
logic chopping just turns your stomach...

It basically said that the NWEAA is not liable ONLY because the
airplane crashed off the area of dirt that was under contract for the
show... Had it rolled up into a ball near the exhibit tents or in the
aircraft parking area it is likely that the court would have hit the
NWEAA with the entire $10M judgment - after correctly excusing the
EAA...


I think if you review the records you will find that the court assigned
the blame for Don Corbitt's crash to Don, a low time pilot. His death
did not necessarily follow from his crash.

It also never said that NWEAA is not liable "ONLY" because the airplane
crashed outside of the area that NWEAA had leased. The Corbitt estate
presented a logical argument supporting their view of NWEAA and EAA
liability based on a series of propositions. The appellate court
determined that more than one of the foundational propositions was
incorrect. Why review the rest of the chain of logic?

As far as the motivation for the suit goes, I am guessing that since
Corbitt RETIRED from Microsoft in 1988 at the age of 37 and bought a
plane he was one of many Microsoft millionaires and the widow was not
just chasing the money. She was probably more motivated by outrage
that her husband died horribly in full view of spectators and emergency
personnel and if event coordinators had arranged for a properly trained
and equipped crew to be there it might have turned out very differently.

As far as our litigious society goes, I don't like it either, but it is
not necessarily inherent in the system and I don't know that I believe
the system is flawed. People abuse it. There are good lawyers out
there ( probably the majority, if the many I know are any indication)
and there are bad ones. The legal profession by its nature probably
attracts more than its fair share of assholes, but it does not damn the
whole profession. At the end of the day the lawyers represent clients
that are not generally lawyers. So the problem is fueled by a
contingent of ordinary citizens that chose to treat our incredible legal
system like a slot machine. The problem is enabled by a host of
defendants that try to abdicate their moral responsibilities and
preserve their profits by hiding behind the ambiguities of law. Finally
the whole system is greased by a jury of average citizens, which means
six to twelve people that are willfully ignorant of about everything
other than sports and the the latest American Idol contestants. It also
doesn't help that lawyers seem to prefer their jurors that way -- if you
want a quick exit from jury duty, just tell them you are an engineer or
have an advanced degree.

As far as the EAA and NWEAA goes, the flyin is the largest on the west
coast and the third largest in the nation. Their own materials boast of
fifty thousand visitors and hundreds of aircraft. This is not a low
buck flyin. They have warbirds, homebuilts in attendance and even
vintage aircraft offering rides. They evidently had a history of
crashes at the event (not their fault, it happens...) Two fatal crashes
that year in fact. With all of this, the emergency response consisted
of a city fire truck manned by a predominately volunteer fire department
who had no training and no special equipment for handling airplane
crashes - basically a water truck for extinguishing a fuel fire. In
Texas we have a lot of VFG's. My brother heads one up. I have immense
respect for them, which is why it is disheartening when they are set up
to fail. This wasn't some pancake breakfast, it was a multi-million
dollar event and an actual crash isn't some statistical anomaly, but a
reasonable expectation.

I do love this press release though:

"This year, the Arlington Fly-In drops Northwest Experimental Aircraft
Association from its name for the first time in 20 years. The change is
part of a new EAA agreement clarifying the national group’s role, said
the event’s executive director, Barbara Tolbert.

“The agreement offers the Arlington Fly-In a new, higher level of
support from EAA,” she said. “We’ll be getting extensive promotion and
coverage of the event from the EAA, which will be a major sponsor of
educational forums and workshops.”

Anyway, just my opinion, and my facts could be totally off base.

Charles

On Oct 16, 4:51*pm, Charles Vincent wrote:
Denny wrote:

As far as the motivation for the suit goes, I am guessing that since
Corbitt RETIRED from Microsoft in 1988 at the age of 37 and bought a
plane he was one of many Microsoft millionaires and the widow was not
just chasing the money. She was probably more motivated by outrage
that her husband died horribly in full view of spectators and emergency
personnel and if event coordinators had arranged for a properly trained
and equipped crew to be there it might have turned out very differently


Come on man... Her husband died from his own stupidity. Whether it was
a departure stall from lack of proper airspeed or he really did leave
the seat belt attached to the stick for gust protection and missed
that very important fact during his hurried attempt to take off .
Whatever the reason, he was responsible for the safety of that
flight,,, he failed in that area big time. I still feel that the
hundreds of spectators who were forever mentally scarred by that crash
should sue the widow for mental anguish because of her husbands
failure to fly his plane properly.....

My gut feeling is, at 37 and retired as a millionaire the chances are
good the family lived high on the hog and ****ed away alot of that
money. Only a good and accurate financial statement will spell that
out and you can bet that fact was glossed over during the trial to
prevent the facts from coming out to show the true motive of the
surviving family to cash in. That one suit has forever changed the
airshow business and it was not for the better... YMMV..

Tailwinds...

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:45:07 -0700 (PDT), stol wrote:

Come on man... Her husband died from his own stupidity.

No, he was *injured* by his own stupidity. He was alert and talking to the
first people who arrived on-scene but died, fully conscious, when flames
eventually engulfed his aircraft. Fly-in volunteers had kept the flames back
until their portable extinquishers ran out. A faster response by trained,
equipped rescuers would have got him to the hospital alive. The legal question
was whether the fly-in or the city should have had a faster response available,
not who was at fault in the accident itself.


Ron Wanttaja

stol wrote:

Come on man... Her husband died from his own stupidity.

And he paid the price.

That one suit has forever changed the
airshow business and it was not for the better... YMMV..


And that is the problem with ridiculous awards like that. It leads to
folks spending more time and effort figuring out how to dodge legal
responsibility and fix blame on someone else than owning up to how their
own actions may have made things worse and addressing them.

Charles

On Oct 16, 3:51*pm, Charles Vincent wrote:
Denny wrote:
While the appeals court ruled in favor of aviation, their (usual)
logic chopping just turns your stomach...

snip

As far as our litigious society goes, I don't like it either, but it is
not necessarily inherent in the system and I don't know that I believe
the system is flawed. *People abuse it. *There are good lawyers out
there ( probably the majority, if the many I know are any indication)
and there are bad ones. *The legal profession by its nature probably
attracts more than its fair share of assholes, but it does not damn the
whole profession. * At the end of the day the lawyers represent clients
that are not generally lawyers. *So the problem is fueled by a
contingent of ordinary citizens that chose to treat our incredible legal
system like a slot machine. *The problem is enabled by a host of
defendants that try to abdicate their moral responsibilities and
preserve their profits by hiding behind the ambiguities of law. Finally
the whole system is greased by a jury of average citizens, which means
six to twelve people that are willfully ignorant of about everything
other than sports and the the latest American Idol contestants. *It also
doesn't help that lawyers seem to prefer their jurors that way -- if you
want a quick exit from jury duty, just tell them you are an engineer or
have an advanced degree.


snip

Anyway, just my opinion, and my facts could be totally off base.



Charles

A lot of lawsuits are filed solely because of ambulance chasing
lawyers. They have nothing to lose, win and they win big, lose and
all they have lost is some time. Given a news-worthy event, accident,
whatever and they will be pounding on the survivor's door "let me file
suit, we may win. I'll take it on 'contingency'".

Big one locally was a stand-off between the cops and an armed suicidal
man. some two hours of talking to him he finally aimed a gun at an
officer. Another officer killed him with two shots (only ones fired).
Yep, lawyeer on door step the next day and filed suit. Last I heard
it has still not been settled.

Harry K

On Oct 16, 7:24*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:45:07 -0700 (PDT), stol wrote:
Come on man... Her husband died from his own stupidity.

No, he was *injured* by his own stupidity. *He was alert and talking to the
first people who arrived on-scene but died, fully conscious, when flames
eventually engulfed his aircraft. Fly-in volunteers had kept the flames back
until their portable extinquishers ran out. *A faster response by trained,
equipped rescuers would have got him to the hospital alive. *The legal question
was whether the fly-in or the city should have had a faster response available,
not who was at fault in the accident itself.

Ron Wanttaja

A faster response "might " have saved him... That was a big issue in
the case. My point is had he flown his plane properly and not crashed
then the legal system would not be churning through its bizarre
course. I still content the hundreds of innocent spectators who
watched a man burn alive are mentally scarred for life but for the
pilots stupidity. For that the estate with 10 million should have to
pay them all..... It is the ol saying,,, "live by the sword, die by
the sword.

Over and out.