The OSH Pool Party is just 30 days away!

In article , Matt Whiting
wrote:

Just keep in mind that there is a very good chance
your group would be held liable is some numbskull did
this and then crashed.

Larry???
Is that you???
Didn't you make this same arguement last year? Let it go man! It's a
dead horse!
Deja Vu all over again... :-))

Didn't you make this same arguement last year? Let it go man! It's a
dead horse!

http://frogs.harvestgain.com/gallery.../deadhorse.gif

Didn't you make this same arguement last year? Let it go man!
It's a dead horse!

So your saying that good advice isn't worth repeating.

Personally in this day and age, if I was Jay and about to give out free
alcohol at a party, I would be keeping a very close eye on everyone who
was drinking.

I don't think another warning about alcohol is a dead horse.

In article , Coors Lite
wrote:

Didn't you make this same arguement last year? Let it go man!
It's a dead horse!

So your saying that good advice isn't worth repeating.
Personally in this day and age, if I was Jay and about to give out free
alcohol at a party, I would be keeping a very close eye on everyone who
was drinking.
I don't think another warning about alcohol is a dead horse.

It is when it is brought up throughout the year, not just around OSH
time.
Jay has proven he is a responsible individual, as have his patrons
(it's a friends don't let friends thing). There are spouses and kids
around so it is not a college frat party event (most of us are too old
even attempt to repeat performances from our younger days).
I guess you could say that this is a "mature" audience in almost every
definition of the word.


(Interesting email address you signed in on.)

Coors Lite wrote in message ...
Didn't you make this same arguement last year? Let it go man!
It's a dead horse!

So your saying that good advice isn't worth repeating.

Personally in this day and age, if I was Jay and about to give out free
alcohol at a party, I would be keeping a very close eye on everyone who
was drinking.

I don't think another warning about alcohol is a dead horse.

Yes, it is. It was brought up last year and took forever for the
thread to die. Usually I enjoy seeing an active thread, but this one
was stupid and I was glad to see it gone.

This isn't high school graduation. The people going to Jay's have
most likely been in this newsgroup awhile and I'm sure know enough
about aviation to avoid drinking and flying. Even if someone got
hammered at his party, flew off into the wild blue yonder, and crashed
into a tower 10 mins later I doubt he would be held liable, even in
today's world.

I guarantee that when we first saw this thread, we were all thinking
"I hope some dumbass doesn't drink beer and then fly". Then of course
most of us dismissed the thought knowing that:
1)The people in this group are probably not that dumb.
2)The people in this group and at Jay's party would likely beat the
sh&t out of anyone trying to do it. Of course, YOU had to be "that
guy" to bring it up. Yes, it is extremely annoying. We are not
stupid people. Keep these warning posts for the reality tv newsgroups
or something.

Sam wrote:

Even if someone got
hammered at his party, flew off into the wild blue yonder, and crashed
into a tower 10 mins later I doubt he would be held liable, even in
today's world.

Hmm. Having just read an ePilot message about some family being awarded
money in court from the manufacturer of a vacuum pump that didn't fail, and
therefore had nothing to do with the crash, I fail to share your optimism
that sanity reigns.

I'd not be shocked to learn that the company that builds the wiring used in
the generators that power the area in which the party is held liable...even
if the party was held by candle light.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Sam wrote:

Even if someone got
hammered at his party, flew off into the wild blue yonder, and crashed
into a tower 10 mins later I doubt he would be held liable, even in
today's world.

Hmm. Having just read an ePilot message about some family being awarded
money in court from the manufacturer of a vacuum pump that didn't fail,
and
therefore had nothing to do with the crash, I fail to share your optimism
that sanity reigns.

I'd not be shocked to learn that the company that builds the wiring used
in
the generators that power the area in which the party is held
liable...even
if the party was held by candle light.

- Andrew

Your second example is of course a crude troll. Also see _Palsgraf vs.
Long Island Railroad._ The first example is too unless you furnish facts
and a citation to the source of those facts so they can be verified, rather
than your (probably clouded) recollection. 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. Maybe you can show me
my first. I won't hold my breath waiting.

As for furnishing alcohol to someone likely to cause injury to himself or
others, the dramshop laws and cases are dispositive. As much as I like the
party-giver and join in complimenting him for his contributions in this and
other newsgroups, it is risky to serve alcohol to anyone you know or have
reason to know is about to operate dangerous machinery because of the
dramshop cases and the dramshop laws. Whether the entertainment is done
for pay or not is irrelevant.

8 hours from bottle to throttle, remember? And 24 are recommended. OTOH,
the question is one of reasonableness. If someone drinks a beer and then
flies, does host who served the beer subject himself to liability? I don't
think so.

As much as I like the
party-giver and join in complimenting him for his contributions in this
and
other newsgroups, it is risky to serve alcohol to anyone you know or have
reason to know is about to operate dangerous machinery because of the
dramshop cases and the dramshop laws. Whether the entertainment is done
for pay or not is irrelevant.

I appreciate the sentiment, but, alas, I don't care to live in a world where
I can't serve my friends beer at pool side.

I also refuse to live in a world where I cannot trust my fellow pilots with
my $30K, full sized van. And no, I don't make them produce a drivers
license, and sign a waiver, nor do I check to make sure that they have
insurance. I toss 'em the keys, give 'em a map, and bid them adieu,
liability be damned.

If you have flown in to my hotel, that's proof enough to me that you are an
honorable, decent person. No one has proven me wrong yet.

People live up to your expectations.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

jls wrote:


and a citation to the source of those facts so they can be verified,
rather
than your (probably clouded) recollection. 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. Maybe you can show
me
my first. I won't hold my breath waiting.


From AOPA e-mail news




JUDGE DENIES CARNAHAN REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL
A Kansas City judge has refused to grant a new trial to the family of
the late Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan seeking punitive damages against
the Parker Hannifin Company. In a ruling, Circuit Court Judge
Charles Atwell said evidence supporting punitive damages was so weak
he was reluctant to give it to a jury. An investigation into the crash
of a twin-engine Cessna aircraft that killed Carnahan, his son Randy,
and aide Chris Sifford on October 16, 2000, found vacuum pumps made
by Parker Hannifin were working well enough for vacuum-driven instruments
to give proper indications. The Carnahan family alleged, however,
that Parker Hannifin earlier had refused to recall vacuum pumps it
manufactured to save money. However, evidence also indicated the
company reported pump failures to the FAA and also warned customers
that pumps could fail and urged the use of backup pumps. The family
sued for $100 million but a jury awarded $4 million from Parker Hannifin,
an amount that was later reduced to $2.4 million. Sifford's family
settled separately with Parker Hannifin, which no longer manufactures
the pumps, for $905,000, according to press reports. To learn more about
the lawsuit, read a previous column from "AOPA Pilot"
( http://www.aopa.org/epilot/redir.cfm?adid=4583 ).

jls wrote:

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 haven't been paying attention to the Parker-Hanefin case, I take it?

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.