Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

[Kingfish]

Quoted from aero-news.net

"Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
million, according to the mediator in the case.

The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
millions of dollars in property damage to the building.

The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.

Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.

Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
building and personal injury.

A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
tragic accident."

Nice to see common sense prevailed here.

[[email protected]]

Kingfish > wrote:
> Quoted from aero-news.net
>
> "Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
> high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
> dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
> million, according to the mediator in the case.
>
> The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
> New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
> was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
> turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
> were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
> millions of dollars in property damage to the building.
>
> The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
> because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
> and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
> One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.
>
> Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
> accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
> airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
> never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.
>
> Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
> companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
> building and personal injury.
>
> A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
> widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
> that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
> tragic accident."
>
> Nice to see common sense prevailed here.


Common sense?

You mean forgetting about the $60 million that was nowhere to be gotten
and settling for the $2 million which was everything gettable?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
wrote:

> Kingfish > wrote:
> > Quoted from aero-news.net
> >
> > "Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
> > high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
> > dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
> > million, according to the mediator in the case.
> >
> > The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
> > New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
> > was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
> > turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
> > were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
> > millions of dollars in property damage to the building.
> >
> > The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
> > because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
> > and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
> > One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.
> >
> > Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
> > accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
> > airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
> > never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.
> >
> > Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
> > companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
> > building and personal injury.
> >
> > A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
> > widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
> > that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
> > tragic accident."
> >
> > Nice to see common sense prevailed here.
>
> Common sense?
>
> You mean forgetting about the $60 million that was nowhere to be gotten
> and settling for the $2 million which was everything gettable?

Everything looks pretty common sense to me regarding this particular
lawsuit.

Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
proper result.

The product liability suit is, of course, utter BS, but that's not the
focus of the story. Let us all hope that one gets thrown out of court
with extreme prejudice.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Stubby[_3_]]

On Oct 7, 10:08*am, Kingfish > wrote:
> Quoted from aero-news.net
>
> "Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
> high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
> dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
> million, according to the mediator in the case.
>
> The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
> New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
> was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
> turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
> were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
> millions of dollars in property damage to the building.
>
> The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
> because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
> and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
> One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.
>
> Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
> accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
> airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
> never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.
>
> Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
> companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
> building and personal injury.
>
> A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
> widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
> that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
> tragic accident."
>
> Nice to see common sense prevailed here.

But who was the Pilot in Command? If this was a training flight, it
would be the CFI. If it was just for fun, then whatever the two
pilots agreed on prevails. By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for
the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who
should be sued.

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 8, 7:58*am, Stubby > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:08*am, Kingfish > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Quoted from aero-news.net
>
> > "Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
> > high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
> > dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
> > million, according to the mediator in the case.
>
> > The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
> > New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
> > was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
> > turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
> > were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
> > millions of dollars in property damage to the building.
>
> > The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
> > because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
> > and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
> > One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.
>
> > Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
> > accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
> > airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
> > never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.
>
> > Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
> > companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
> > building and personal injury.
>
> > A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
> > widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
> > that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
> > tragic accident."
>
> > Nice to see common sense prevailed here.
>
> But who was the Pilot in Command? *If this was a training flight, it
> would be the CFI. *If it was just for fun, then whatever the two
> pilots agreed on prevails. * By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for
> the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who
> should be sued.
The OP indicates rational analysis was used -- if there are no assets
available, why sue?

[will alibrandi]

On Oct 7, 8:07*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> Common sense?
>
> lol
> --

Meaning the plaintiffs dropped their ridiculous $60M product liability
suit when it was determined the aircraft wasn't at fault for flying
into a building.

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
Stubby > wrote:

> But who was the Pilot in Command? If this was a training flight, it
> would be the CFI. If it was just for fun, then whatever the two
> pilots agreed on prevails. By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for
> the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who
> should be sued.

Does that regulation hold sway once the plane has smashed into something
expensive and is thus no longer airborne? I'm no lawyer, but I think
that the FAA can't regulate civil courts' actions regarding damage on
the ground, and I could see reasoning in such a case where it's
determined that the instructor has some civil liability because he was
in a position of responsibility even if the FAA says that the other
pilot was PIC.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>
> > Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
> > insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
> > sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
> > actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
> > any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
> > and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
> > proper result.
>
> Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
> two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
> negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
> but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
> negligence except in theory.

The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Robert Moore]

Mike Ash > wrote
> The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
> planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
> bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
> damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
> sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.


Nope!! Legally can't be done.....

NTSB Reports in Court.
NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in court. More accurately, facts
from the report may be used, but opinions may not. There are two reasons
for this policy. First, the integrity of the NTSB’s investigation may be
compromised if final reports were used as evidence. Second, the autonomy of
the jury must be maintained during civil proceedings.

If NTSB reports were used as evidence, some witnesses may be less
forthcoming with information during the investigative process and could
compromise the quality of the report by giving a more desired answer
instead of an accurate answer to questions being asked of them.
Additionally, the NTSB and the people involved with the report could be
summoned to court to testify, which would prevent them from performing
their normal investigative duties.

Bob Moore

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Robert Moore > wrote:

> Mike Ash > wrote
> > The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
> > planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
> > bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
> > damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
> > sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.
>
> Nope!! Legally can't be done.....
>
> NTSB Reports in Court.
> NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in court. More accurately, facts
> from the report may be used, but opinions may not. There are two reasons
> for this policy. First, the integrity of the NTSB’s investigation may be
> compromised if final reports were used as evidence. Second, the autonomy of
> the jury must be maintained during civil proceedings.
>
> If NTSB reports were used as evidence, some witnesses may be less
> forthcoming with information during the investigative process and could
> compromise the quality of the report by giving a more desired answer
> instead of an accurate answer to questions being asked of them.
> Additionally, the NTSB and the people involved with the report could be
> summoned to court to testify, which would prevent them from performing
> their normal investigative duties.

Good to know, thanks.

However, I think my ultimate line of thought still works. If the NTSB
can conclude this from the facts, the court can too. This crash seems to
be fairly clearly the pilot's fault, whoever it happened to be at the
time. The one tricky part is where they assign blame to both, but I
don't personally see a problem with that either. Civil suits have a much
lower standard of proof, after all, and placing responsibility for
damages on the ground on both of the qualified pilots occupying the
cockpit seems justified to me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Stubby[_3_]]

On Oct 8, 7:25*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> Mike Ash > wrote
>
> > The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
> > planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
> > bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
> > damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
> > sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.
>
> Nope!! Legally can't be done.....
>
> NTSB Reports in Court.
> NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in court. More accurately, facts
> from the report may be used, but opinions may not. There are two reasons
> for this policy. First, the integrity of the NTSB’s investigation may be
> compromised if final reports were used as evidence. Second, the autonomy of
> the jury must be maintained during civil proceedings.
>
> If NTSB reports were used as evidence, some witnesses may be less
> forthcoming with information during the investigative process and could
> compromise the quality of the report by giving a more desired answer
> instead of an accurate answer to questions being asked of them.
> Additionally, the NTSB and the people involved with the report could be
> summoned to court to testify, which would prevent them from performing
> their normal investigative duties.
>
> Bob Moore

NTSB findings are not admissable evidence because they are hearsay.
Every court must look at the same facts and make its own finding.
That view was presented by an NTSB investigator to a WINGS seminar
that used to be called the "Crash Course: 17 ways to fall out of the
sky."

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:40 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
> >>
> >>> Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
> >>> insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
> >>> sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
> >>> actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
> >>> any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
> >>> and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
> >>> proper result.
> >>
> >> Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
> >> two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
> >> negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
> >> but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
> >> negligence except in theory.
> >
> > The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
> > planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
> > bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
> > damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
> > sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.
>
> You're waaaaaaaay off the mark.

It's clear that you have no interest in a productive discussion, so into
the killfile with you.

(It's not useful to just say "you're wrong" all the time, you have to
actually back it up.)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Flaps_50!]

On Oct 10, 6:28*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:40 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > *Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> > >> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>
> > >>> Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
> > >>> insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
> > >>> sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
> > >>> actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
> > >>> any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
> > >>> and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
> > >>> proper result.
>
> > >> Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
> > >> two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
> > >> negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
> > >> but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
> > >> negligence except in theory.
>
> > > The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
> > > planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
> > > bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
> > > damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
> > > sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.
>
> > You're waaaaaaaay off the mark.
>
> It's clear that you have no interest in a productive discussion, so into
> the killfile with you.
>
> (It's not useful to just say "you're wrong" all the time, you have to
> actually back it up.)
>
> --
Why isn't the summary of the NTSB viewed in the same way as the
opinion of an expert witness -or is it?

Cheers

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 6:28Â*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Â*Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:40 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>>
>> > > In article >,
>> > > Â*Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>>
>> > >> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>>
>> > >>> Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
>> > >>> insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
>> > >>> sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
>> > >>> actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
>> > >>> any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
>> > >>> and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
>> > >>> proper result.
>>
>> > >> Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
>> > >> two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
>> > >> negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
>> > >> but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
>> > >> negligence except in theory.
>>
>> > > The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
>> > > planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
>> > > bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
>> > > damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
>> > > sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.
>>
>> > You're waaaaaaaay off the mark.
>>
>> It's clear that you have no interest in a productive discussion, so into
>> the killfile with you.
>>
>> (It's not useful to just say "you're wrong" all the time, you have to
>> actually back it up.)
>>
>> --
> Why isn't the summary of the NTSB viewed in the same way as the
> opinion of an expert witness -or is it?
>
> Cheers

This has been answered many times; NTSB opinions are not admissible as
evidence in court.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[will alibrandi]

On Oct 8, 3:31*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), will alibrandi wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 8:07*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> >> Common sense?
>
> >> lol
> >> --
>
> > Meaning the plaintiffs dropped their ridiculous $60M product liability
> > suit when it was determined the aircraft wasn't at fault for flying
> > into a building.
>
> Huh?
>
> "A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
> *widow and Stanger's estate...."
> --


Aha. It seems I misunderstood the article. I guess the building owner
& residents settled, but Lidle's wife et al is still suing Cirrus for
product liability. (as if it were the plane's fault for flying into a
building) I hope the NTSB finding has some sway in that ridiculous
suit.