jls wrote:

"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...

in article , jls at
wrote on 6/25/04 9:34 PM:


I have never seen a judgment
awarded to an injured plaintiff when there wasn't some proof of

negligence

or defective design proximately causing the injury.

You need to get your nose out of those law books and take a look at the

real

world, you're living in a fantasy world.


Ah, my partisan friend, you need to furnish evidence it -- a case going to
the jury without evidence of negligence -- has happened, otherwise be
thought of as shooting from the hip with a $2 pistol.

I haven't read much law since taking the bar in the 70's, haven't needed to
all that much, but I've learned people's "facts" often lack substance and
substantiation, and will twist the facts to suit their purpose. It's always
good then to consider what one has at stake when one takes a position, and
you rarely if ever have a pilot or CFI or aircraft owner or engineer or
owner of an FBO taking the side of a plaintiff like the Carnahan widow.

In the Carnahan case there was indeed testimony that the Parker-Hannifin
gyro failed, that P-H gyros had performance problems on other occasions in
other aircraft, and therefore P-H had notice of a defect or defects needing
to be cured. At any rate P-H settled, constituting an admission of
liability. The other character in this thread saying there was no such
evidence is hanging his hat on AOPA's take of the evidence. You could
hardly say THEY are objective at AOPA in these controversies ---- about as
objective as Michael Moore is about George Bush.

Unfortunately, many, maybe even most, companies settle even if they
don't think they are liable. They make a business decision that weighs
the cost of defense against the cost of a settlement, and then choose
the least expensive option. There have been many studies since the
silicone breast implant case was brought and settled and every study so
far shows no indication of a connection between the health problems the
women suffered and their silicone implants. The reason that Dow-Corning
settled is that the projected cost of defending lawsuits in virtually
every state in the union was simply mind boggling. And, they actually
won most of the initial suits prior to the class action being formed.
The issue wasn't liability, it was cost of defense.


Matt