Jury gets it right

[kallend 1,683]

www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/orl-bk-payne070805,0,2723983.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Learjet and Bombardier found not at fault in Payne Stewart plane crash.

I like the bit where the plaintiff lawyer says the suit wasn't about the money. Does that mean the a$$hat was going to donate his fee to charity if he'd won?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I like the bit where the plaintiff lawyer says the suit wasn't about the money. Does that mean the a$$hat was going to donate his fee to charity if he'd won?

I'm sure it would just be small remuneration to cover his expenses for making aviation more safe for everyone.

Let's see, 30% of 200 million is... 60 million dollars! Wow, he sure had a lot of expenses to cover...

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Tracey Stewart, her teenage son and college-aged daughter and Fraley's widow, Dixie Fraley Keller, said through a statement that "their hope in this effort was to make air travel safer ..."

and by suing a company and taking all their money they would accomplish this how?

IMO, air travel could be safer if people would stop suing the airplane companies so they could use that money for R&D.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[billvon 2,478]

>IMO, air travel could be safer if people would stop suing the airplane
>companies so they could use that money for R&D.

By that thinking, cigarettes would be nearly 100% safe now if no one ever complained about their health effects, sued the tobacco companies, required warning labels on cigarettes etc. Surely cigarette companies would put all the money they would save into R+D, rather than return it to their shareholders! After all, companies are in business to make things safer, not turn a profit.

The reality is that flying is a dangerous endeavor. You need to be unreasonably paranoid about maintenance, crew training, shift lengths etc to make flying relatively safe. And we have seen time and time again that, given the opportunity, airlines cut corners. This isn't because they are evil, this is because the airlines that don't cut corners, and have higher ticket prices as a result, go out of business. Capitalism provides a tremendous pressure to go cheaper, not better.

Yes, it would be nice if people bought their tickets based on whose maintenance program is better. In the real world they go to Travelocity and buy the cheapest ticket.

That being said, lawsuits are usually not the best way to enforce such paranoia. The FAA, NTSB, and DOT generally do a better job, because they can apply regulation to ALL airlines, and thus no one airline is penalized competitively by doing required maintenance.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Tracey Stewart, her teenage son and college-aged daughter and Fraley's widow, Dixie Fraley Keller, said through a statement that "their hope in this effort was to make air travel safer ..."

and by suing a company and taking all their money they would accomplish this how?

IMO, air travel could be safer if people would stop suing the airplane companies so they could use that money for R&D.

Judy

Ummm - that's altogether too logical. The plaintiff's bar will never buy into that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

"their hope in this effort was to make air travel safer ..."

and by suing a company and taking all their money they would accomplish this how?

The theory is that the airplane manufacturers are intentionally building aircraft with substandard parts to save money. And if they know they will be sued for doing this, costing them a lot of money, then they will use higher quality parts which won't fail and cause accidents. And everyone will fly happily ever after.

Of course, the premise is incorrect, so everything which follows from that is irrelevant.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

IMO, air travel could be safer if people would stop suing the airplane companies so they could use that money for R&D.

In a perfect world yes. But do you think they'll put that money into R&D or making the stock look better?

Scars remind us that the past is real

[diverborg 0]

This was a ridiculous lawsuit from the beginning, like almost every lawsuit involving an aircraft manufacturer. I've been a mechanic on this type of learjet for 3 years. They are old. The item mentioned has supposed to have been functionally tested and inspected about 15 times since its manufacture. I don't care how well you manufacture something, these jets don't last forever without proper maintenence. Why did the family focus their lawsuit on the manufacturer and not the company responsible for the maintenance? Because learjet has lots of money. The company I work for was involved in this lawsuit as well. I'm not sure how much many we spent defending ourselves, but the only component we touched (autopilot), was the one thing that worked perfectly until the jet crashed. Yet we have to spend God knows how much money to defend this ridiculous lawsuit. I hate to say it but you do have to take care of an aircraft. You can't just blame it on the manufacturer when something goes wrong. This absolutely pisses me off.
F*^%ing losers. These lawsuits in no way benefit aviation, they drive prices up outrageously, and could put a great company like Bombardier(or mine) out of business.

[diverborg 0]

So it took six years to finally get dismissed from this stupid lawsuit. I bet that wasn't cheap. The plaintiff should have to pick up this tab. Maybe that will make people think twice before trying to sock some company for $200 million.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"their hope in this effort was to make air travel safer ..."

and by suing a company and taking all their money they would accomplish this how?

The theory is that the airplane manufacturers are intentionally building aircraft with substandard parts to save money. And if they know they will be sued for doing this, costing them a lot of money, then they will use higher quality parts which won't fail and cause accidents. And everyone will fly happily ever after.

Of course, the premise is incorrect, so everything which follows from that is irrelevant.

Of course, the premise is incorrect, so everything which follows from that is irrelevant.

Oh really? I bet you subscibe to criminal deterrence, don't you? So to deter a criminal with the fear of jail is valid, but to deter a corporation by assessing costs against them won't inact deterrence..... bullshit. In fact, the later does deter corps, whereas criminal prison time has yet to be established as a deterrent.

The truth is that corps don't listen to laws unless there is a big penalty attached to it. See, it's alla about the bottom line and if operating a given way costs money then they will change operating protocol.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

So it took six years to finally get dismissed from this stupid lawsuit. I bet that wasn't cheap. The plaintiff should have to pick up this tab. Maybe that will make people think twice before trying to sock some company for $200 million.

Generally, you have to establish the other party filed the suit/counterclaim in frivolity to get reimbursed expenses. I think people should be able to file suit, if not, corps would run amuck.

[Guest]

Quote

The reality is that flying is a dangerous endeavor. You need to be unreasonably paranoid about maintenance, crew training, shift lengths etc to make flying relatively safe. And we have seen time and time again that, given the opportunity, airlines cut corners. This isn't because they are evil, this is because the airlines that don't cut corners, and have higher ticket prices as a result, go out of business. Capitalism provides a tremendous pressure to go cheaper, not better.

Yes, it would be nice if people bought their tickets based on whose maintenance program is better. In the real world they go to Travelocity and buy the cheapest ticket.

That being said, lawsuits are usually not the best way to enforce such paranoia. The FAA, NTSB, and DOT generally do a better job, because they can apply regulation to ALL airlines, and thus no one airline is penalized competitively by doing required maintenance.

Hear, hear.

This is an excellent argument for the benificence of Federalism, where an agency is NOT beholden to special (read - CORPORATE) interests, and can therefore focus on the real issues - namely public safety.

This was a bizarre situation; a freak occurence on a small jet - the plantiff's arguments of "the safety of the flying public" are bogus.

Nice to see that the jury found it that way.

mh

.

Addendum: All of this is predicated on the society that is underpinning said agency, however. I would not have the same faith that transportation safety officials in the Ukraine or Mexico would adhere to the same standards; id est - such scrutiny and diligence is part of and a product of the culture. And no, it isn't about race.

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The theory is that the airplane manufacturers are intentionally building aircraft with substandard parts to save money. And if they know they will be sued for doing this, costing them a lot of money, then they will use higher quality parts which won't fail and cause accidents. And everyone will fly happily ever after.

Of course, the premise is incorrect, so everything which follows from that is irrelevant.

Oh really? I bet you subscibe to criminal deterrence, don't you? So to deter a criminal with the fear of jail is valid, but to deter a corporation by assessing costs against them won't inact deterrence..... bullshit. In fact, the later does deter corps, whereas criminal prison time has yet to be established as a deterrent.

The truth is that corps don't listen to laws unless there is a big penalty attached to it...

Um, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you that corporations don't want to incur huge costs.

What I was saying about an incorrect premise is the idea that aircraft manufacturers intentionally use poor quality parts to save money, knowing that those parts will cause planes to crash, and that they don't care about the dead passengers thereof. That theory is bunk. No one want's dead passengers.

There have been a few cases of parts suppliers recycling old parts and falsely certifying them as new, and they have been deservedly put in jail.

The fact is, no matter how high-quality your parts are, and how good your maintenance is, failures are always going to occur anyway. Just because "accidents happen", doesn't mean that someone was criminally negligent or intentionally jeopardized safety to save a few pennies.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The theory is that the airplane manufacturers are intentionally building aircraft with substandard parts to save money. And if they know they will be sued for doing this, costing them a lot of money, then they will use higher quality parts which won't fail and cause accidents. And everyone will fly happily ever after.

Of course, the premise is incorrect, so everything which follows from that is irrelevant.

Oh really? I bet you subscibe to criminal deterrence, don't you? So to deter a criminal with the fear of jail is valid, but to deter a corporation by assessing costs against them won't inact deterrence..... bullshit. In fact, the later does deter corps, whereas criminal prison time has yet to be established as a deterrent.

The truth is that corps don't listen to laws unless there is a big penalty attached to it...

Um, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you that corporations don't want to incur huge costs.

What I was saying about an incorrect premise is the idea that aircraft manufacturers intentionally use poor quality parts to save money, knowing that those parts will cause planes to crash, and that they don't care about the dead passengers thereof. That theory is bunk. No one want's dead passengers.

There have been a few cases of parts suppliers recycling old parts and falsely certifying them as new, and they have been deservedly put in jail.

The fact is, no matter how high-quality your parts are, and how good your maintenance is, failures are always going to occur anyway. Just because "accidents happen", doesn't mean that someone was criminally negligent or intentionally jeopardized safety to save a few pennies.

OK. I wonder if the parts that failed, possibly a P&D valve I'm guessing, were made by vendors? If so, then acft manufacturers use whatever is FAA PMA Certified, or whatever is TSO'd and is the cheapest. They won't knowingly use substandard parts or parts that are illegal, but they will use the cheapest ones. That is not negligent or illegal and what little I know of the suit it sounds as of the jury did get it right. Besides, Lear's are junk . I prolly pissed off someone! I don't really know corp jets that well, but they have a reputation of being high maint and a pain in the ass to work on.

Was one ofthe parts an altitude pressure switch? We do Oxygen mask blowndown checks pretty often that are triggered by the O2 pressure switch. Seems like there could be a duplicate system or even a mechanical system as well that dignoses a rapid decompression and drops teh masks - rather have several false positives than 1 of these events.


There have been a few cases of parts suppliers recycling old parts and falsely certifying them as new, and they have been deservedly put in jail.

These guys aren't acft manufacturers but suppliers to repair stations and they DO cut corners. Just look at the Valujet disaster and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The fact is, no matter how high-quality your parts are, and how good your maintenance is, failures are always going to occur anyway. Just because "accidents happen", doesn't mean that someone was criminally negligent or intentionally jeopardized safety to save a few pennies.


Certainly. Actually they were just charged with gross negligence, right? When corporations even intentionally kill people it almost always reverts to a civil fine - kinda cute how that works.

Legally speaking, a corporation is a person, but it seems they are immune from a murder charge. How do you jail a corporation? I think far more emphasis should be place on corp CEO's that take advantage of corporate severance and immunity.

[Guest]

Consider how numerous defendants were named in the rotor mishap at Rantoul, among them, the manufacturer. Shyster lawyers always go for deep pockets.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Consider how numerous defendants were named in the rotor mishap at Rantoul, among them, the manufacturer. Shyster lawyers always go for deep pockets.

mh

.

TRue to a degree, but as filing statues go, it is wise to include any and all potentially liable parties. True, you can include a statement about how you will include newly discovered liable parties later, but if the judge disallows then you may be screwed. It's best to immediatley file and then start interoggatories, file disclosure statements as soon as the interogs come in. If you need to excuse defendants you can easily do that, but it can be difficult to later include them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

TRue to a degree, but as filing statues go, it is wise to include any and all potentially liable parties. True, you can include a statement about how you will include newly discovered liable parties later, but if the judge disallows then you may be screwed

Sure, works out great for you, but meanwhile you've force numerous innocent parties to retain their own protection at their expense. It's the fear of these sorts of nuisance suits (at least for including them) that leads many people to provide as little assistance as possible in various endeavors so they won't be targetted so.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

TRue to a degree, but as filing statues go, it is wise to include any and all potentially liable parties. True, you can include a statement about how you will include newly discovered liable parties later, but if the judge disallows then you may be screwed

Sure, works out great for you, but meanwhile you've force numerous innocent parties to retain their own protection at their expense. It's the fear of these sorts of nuisance suits (at least for including them) that leads many people to provide as little assistance as possible in various endeavors so they won't be targetted so.

Sure, works out great for you, but meanwhile you've force numerous innocent parties to retain their own protection at their expense.

Works out great for all litigants and potential litigants. The other option is to scare people away from civil litigation which will allow corps and others to run amuck.

It's the fear of these sorts of nuisance suits (at least for including them) that leads many people to provide as little assistance as possible in various endeavors so they won't be targetted so.


Lawsuits against corporations leads people to fail to render aid how? Thses kinds of lawsuits, product liability leading to wrongfull death, lead to hold accountable corporations that act irresponsible and send a message to those that might consider cutting corners. I real frivolous cases the judge can and will issue a judgment against the plaintiffs for costs for the defense.

Here is a frivolous case that was file to suppress testimony, I think the plaintiff, ex-cop will just drop the case. If he pushes it he will certainly be paying for his defendant's costs.... This suit was filed by the fired cop 1 or 2 days before his first citizen's review board hearing..... I am 95% sure he has no intention to further pursue it - it was filed to scare people, other cops, away from testifying.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2004-092518

[cloudseeker2001 0]

unfortunately, the threat of lawsuits, no matter what the details are, is what keeps people honest in our country.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[diverborg 0]

Quote

unfortunately, the threat of lawsuits, no matter what the details are, is what keeps people honest in our country

The threat will always be there, but blanket lawsuits are bullshit. There needs to be a determination of the accident before you can just throw a lawsuit out to everyone that even looked at the jet. My company still had to pay to defend themselves for over 4 years over what is a frivolous lawsuit. We never touched anything on that jet that could have been related to that crash in anyone's wildest imagination. That is not the way to go about keeping people honest. That's what allows people to be dishonest and take advantage of businesses. No company has a bottomless bank account (ok maybe microsoft) especially in aviation. They operate off a very narrow profit margin and often suffer from several bankruptcies and reformations throughout time just to continue production. These type lawsuits do not help the economy or the safety of aviation period.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It's the fear of these sorts of nuisance suits (at least for including them) that leads many people to provide as little assistance as possible in various endeavors so they won't be targetted so.

Lawsuits against corporations leads people to fail to render aid how? Thses kinds of lawsuits, product liability leading to wrongfull death, lead to hold accountable corporations that act irresponsible and send a message to those that might consider cutting corners. I real frivolous cases the judge can and will issue a judgment against the plaintiffs for costs for the defense.

Where did I write corporations? You wrote that it was best to list anyone and everyone on the initial complaint, because it might be difficult to add them later. So in a jump accident, anyone that ever touched the gear, student, or nearby land in some form is tasked with defending themselves from a million dollar lawsuit.

There's nothing wrong with product liability suits against corporations. But that's not the topic at hand here.

In the diving world, this has resulting in a lot of litigation fearful divers. Divemaster rated customers at a diveboat will submit their OW cert card, and might refuse to answer any gear question lest something bad happen on the dive and they get blamed for it. The notion of a buddy waiver is no longer just a pathetic joke. I won't dive with strangers myself, though it's more about the lack of value to me than a fear of them in court.

Thankfully the skydiving world doesn't seem so afraid - it's obvious that this sport is dangerous, so it's much harder for litigation to go anywhere. Scuba is perhaps half as dangerous on a per dive basis, but is seen as very safe for the entire family. The diving world's insurers also have a bad habit of settling out of court, enticing even more suits.

Go mountaineering in the Sierra and see what sort of information you get from park rangers. They have been conditioned to treat everyone as urban idiots for similar reasons.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's the fear of these sorts of nuisance suits (at least for including them) that leads many people to provide as little assistance as possible in various endeavors so they won't be targetted so.

Lawsuits against corporations leads people to fail to render aid how? Thses kinds of lawsuits, product liability leading to wrongfull death, lead to hold accountable corporations that act irresponsible and send a message to those that might consider cutting corners. I real frivolous cases the judge can and will issue a judgment against the plaintiffs for costs for the defense.

Where did I write corporations? You wrote that it was best to list anyone and everyone on the initial complaint, because it might be difficult to add them later. So in a jump accident, anyone that ever touched the gear, student, or nearby land in some form is tasked with defending themselves from a million dollar lawsuit.

There's nothing wrong with product liability suits against corporations. But that's not the topic at hand here.

In the diving world, this has resulting in a lot of litigation fearful divers. Divemaster rated customers at a diveboat will submit their OW cert card, and might refuse to answer any gear question lest something bad happen on the dive and they get blamed for it. The notion of a buddy waiver is no longer just a pathetic joke. I won't dive with strangers myself, though it's more about the lack of value to me than a fear of them in court.

Thankfully the skydiving world doesn't seem so afraid - it's obvious that this sport is dangerous, so it's much harder for litigation to go anywhere. Scuba is perhaps half as dangerous on a per dive basis, but is seen as very safe for the entire family. The diving world's insurers also have a bad habit of settling out of court, enticing even more suits.

Go mountaineering in the Sierra and see what sort of information you get from park rangers. They have been conditioned to treat everyone as urban idiots for similar reasons.

Where did I write corporations?

Usually simple folk don't get sued like corps do, but the same applies to deterrence and the common person.

You wrote that it was best to list anyone and everyone on the initial complaint, because it might be difficult to add them later. So in a jump accident, anyone that ever touched the gear, student, or nearby land in some form is tasked with defending themselves from a million dollar lawsuit.


Yes. Also, the doctrine of Respondent Superior makes managers responsible for their worker's actions in many cases. Either way, it is typical to list any and all potentially responsible parties, and then dismiss thema s it goes.

There's nothing wrong with product liability suits against corporations. But that's not the topic at hand here.

HUH, then what is it? It was wrongfull death via product liability.

In the diving world, this has resulting in a lot of litigation fearful divers. Divemaster rated customers at a diveboat will submit their OW cert card, and might refuse to answer any gear question lest something bad happen on the dive and they get blamed for it. The notion of a buddy waiver is no longer just a pathetic joke. I won't dive with strangers myself, though it's more about the lack of value to me than a fear of them in court.

It's a tough balance between too much litigation and not enough civil liability.

Thankfully the skydiving world doesn't seem so afraid - it's obvious that this sport is dangerous, so it's much harder for litigation to go anywhere. Scuba is perhaps half as dangerous on a per dive basis, but is seen as very safe for the entire family. The diving world's insurers also have a bad habit of settling out of court, enticing even more suits.


Generally only DZ's that are actually liable will settle out. Either way, people must have a right to sue or businesses/corps/etc would just say fuck it and run amuck.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

unfortunately, the threat of lawsuits, no matter what the details are, is what keeps people honest in our country

The threat will always be there, but blanket lawsuits are bullshit. There needs to be a determination of the accident before you can just throw a lawsuit out to everyone that even looked at the jet. My company still had to pay to defend themselves for over 4 years over what is a frivolous lawsuit. We never touched anything on that jet that could have been related to that crash in anyone's wildest imagination. That is not the way to go about keeping people honest. That's what allows people to be dishonest and take advantage of businesses. No company has a bottomless bank account (ok maybe microsoft) especially in aviation. They operate off a very narrow profit margin and often suffer from several bankruptcies and reformations throughout time just to continue production. These type lawsuits do not help the economy or the safety of aviation period.

I hear ya, but if we dissuade lawsuit filings for fear of financial repraisal we could go the other eway - there is a balance.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Consider how numerous defendants were named in the rotor mishap at Rantoul, among them, the manufacturer. Shyster lawyers always go for deep pockets.

mh

.

TRue to a degree, but as filing statues go, it is wise to include any and all potentially liable parties. True, you can include a statement about how you will include newly discovered liable parties later, but if the judge disallows then you may be screwed. It's best to immediatley file and then start interoggatories, file disclosure statements as soon as the interogs come in. If you need to excuse defendants you can easily do that, but it can be difficult to later include them.

This is exactly the problem; those defendants who had nothing whatever to do with the outcome are still required to pay for lawyers and experts. A number of years ago I was expert witness for a company that makes racing engines for dragsters. The engine manufacturer had been named in a suit concerning wrongful death of a spectator even though the engine hadn't failed and was still in use in another vehicle. Bloody ridiculous.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Consider how numerous defendants were named in the rotor mishap at Rantoul, among them, the manufacturer. Shyster lawyers always go for deep pockets.

mh

.

TRue to a degree, but as filing statues go, it is wise to include any and all potentially liable parties. True, you can include a statement about how you will include newly discovered liable parties later, but if the judge disallows then you may be screwed. It's best to immediatley file and then start interoggatories, file disclosure statements as soon as the interogs come in. If you need to excuse defendants you can easily do that, but it can be difficult to later include them.

This is exactly the problem; those defendants who had nothing whatever to do with the outcome are still required to pay for lawyers and experts. A number of years ago I was expert witness for a company that makes racing engines for dragsters. The engine manufacturer had been named in a suit concerning wrongful death of a spectator even though the engine hadn't failed and was still in use in another vehicle. Bloody ridiculous.

Ya, and for a case that removed the plaintiffs should foot the bill.

An example to support your position is with my Eloy. They were sued like 3 years ago after 2 guys came together overthe fuel area and 1 died. The family sued the survivor and the DZ. OK, maybe the survivor caused the collision, but the DZ? Eloy is the safest place with the easiest landing areas, 90 degrees apart for wind considerations. One area is a dedicated student landing area to seperate the tandems and hook turners from the students. And if that isn't enough, there are acres of desert landing areas. So why the DZ? I read the complaint and it stated that the DZ was inolved in a dangerous sport, so they're inherently liable. That is a fuckin joke and I hope they didn't pay anything. However I do know another DZthat got sued and settled out for way less than they should have.

POint here is, I agree that some filings have an excessive defendant list and the plaintiffs should pay. Here's an example:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2004-092518

That dirty murdering cop is suing everyone to supress their testimony at his job hearing. Fortunately it is a final decision that he will not get his job back and I think he has the sense to drop the suit. None the less, the suit was filed in an effort to shut people up.

Cop and his wife
Daniel Lovelace Plaintiff
Tricia Lovelace Plaintiff

Gov agencies
County Of Maricopa Defendant
City Of Chandler Defendant

CTY ATTNY
Richard M Romley Defendant

Trial attny - prosecutor
Vince Imbordino Defendant
(You can't [in 99.999% of cases] sue prosecutors dumbshit cop - get a clue)

Former Chandler Police Chief that had to quit for cops 2 killings
Bobby Joe Harris Defendant

Public info officer
Donna Dreska Defendant

Cops
Ivan Kaminsky Defendant
Raymond Kieffer Defendant
Jesse Boggs Defendant
Shawn Hawkins Defendant
Andrew Andersen Defendant
Michael Slupinski Defendant
Matthew Christensen Defendant
Thomas Blaine Defendant
Paul Meissner Defendant
Michael McNeff Defendant
Pat McDermott Defendant
Boyd Dunn Defendant


So litigation gets misued all the time, but if we limit it then we have injustice the other way - we should find a middle ground