Cirrus sued by Lidle's & Stanger's families

[Kingfish]

I guess we all knew this was gonna happen...

I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
the cause. Unbelievable. They claim the feds' data show Cirrus
aircraft having a history of aileron failures and other accidents
involving flight control failures. I've read about quite a few Cirrus
accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
system failure(?)

So they go after the engine mfr (did it quit on them?) and the
propeller mfr (did it fall off?) and the autopilot mfr (did George fly
them into the building?) The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote

> I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
> suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
> Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
> the cause. Unbelievable.

They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when it
is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor up
the river that far, etc.

Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably was -
what a shocker.

BDS

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kingfish wrote:
> I've read about quite a few Cirrus
> accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
> system failure(?)

There was the one when the pilot had to pop the chute because the aileron
was reattached properly after maintenance.

[Peter R.]

On 3/5/2007 2:24:08 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

> Kingfish wrote:
>> I've read about quite a few Cirrus
>> accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
>> system failure(?)
>
> There was the one when the pilot had to pop the chute because the aileron
> was reattached properly after maintenance.

Wasn't there also an issue related to the ailerons that surfaced back when
Cirrus was first testing their aircraft pre-certification? I recall reading
of this, but don't recall the details now.

--
Peter

[Ron Natalie]

Peter R. wrote:

> Wasn't there also an issue related to the ailerons that surfaced back when
> Cirrus was first testing their aircraft pre-certification? I recall reading
> of this, but don't recall the details now.
>
I think you're talking about the Overmyer crash. That was a VK-30 not
the SR20/22. The elevator jammed.

[chris[_1_]]

On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Kingfish" > wrote
>
> > I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
> > suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
> > Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
> > the cause. Unbelievable.
>
> They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
> constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when it
> is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor up
> the river that far, etc.
>
> Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably was -
> what a shocker.
>
> BDS

Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
responsibility??

[Dallas]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:24:11 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> There was the one when the pilot had to pop the chute because the aileron
> was reattached properly after maintenance.

Yup, that happened here in Dallas. That was the first certified aircraft
to pop the BRS chute in a real emergency.

Monarch performed service bulletin work on the aileron trim tab before the
flight. Shortly after take off the left aileron damn near fell off.

Not exactly relevant when talking about a history of aileron failures but
the lawyers will probably try to use it anyway.

Pretty interesting story:
http://tinyurl.com/279z8s



--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:45:31 GMT, Dallas wrote:

> Pretty interesting story:
> http://tinyurl.com/279z8s

They make finding part 2 of the story a bit difficult so here's a link to
the conclusion:

http://tinyurl.com/2ybguc
--
Dallas

[Darkwing]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" > wrote:
>> "Kingfish" > wrote
>>
>> > I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
>> > suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
>> > Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
>> > the cause. Unbelievable.
>>
>> They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
>> constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when
>> it
>> is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor
>> up
>> the river that far, etc.
>>
>> Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably
>> was -
>> what a shocker.
>>
>> BDS
>
> Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
> something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
> responsibility??
>

If the plaintiff in a lawsuit had to pay for the defendants legal bills if
the plaintiff loses (like in Europe) most of this frivolous suing BS would
go away. Well I'm off to pour hot coffee all over my crotch.

--------------------------------------------
DW

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 5, 10:50 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
> I guess we all knew this was gonna happen...
>
> I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
> suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
> Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
> the cause. Unbelievable. They claim the feds' data show Cirrus
> aircraft having a history of aileron failures and other accidents
> involving flight control failures. I've read about quite a few Cirrus
> accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
> system failure(?)
>
> So they go after the engine mfr (did it quit on them?) and the
> propeller mfr (did it fall off?) and the autopilot mfr (did George fly
> them into the building?) The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
> effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.

Anyone named in the initial action is no longer protected by time. If
you wait too long you can't file against anyone. You always name
anyone who could possibly be named in the first round. Usually you end
up with 1 or 2 named by the time you make an offer.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 5, 12:58 pm, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "chris" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" > wrote:
> >> "Kingfish" > wrote
>
> >> > I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
> >> > suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
> >> > Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
> >> > the cause. Unbelievable.
>
> >> They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
> >> constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when
> >> it
> >> is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor
> >> up
> >> the river that far, etc.
>
> >> Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably
> >> was -
> >> what a shocker.
>
> >> BDS
>
> > Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
> > something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
> > responsibility??
>
> If the plaintiff in a lawsuit had to pay for the defendants legal bills if
> the plaintiff loses (like in Europe) most of this frivolous suing BS would
> go away. Well I'm off to pour hot coffee all over my crotch.

Actually, if you want real legal reform all you would need to is to
cause punitive damages to go to someone/something other than the
claimant. The legal system makes the person whole through actual
damages (pain and suffering, lose of income, expenses, etc). Giving
punitive damages to this person never made any sense to me at all.
Allow attorneys to still collect a percentage of the punitive but the
rest should go somewhere else (even to the bottom of the ocean would
be better).

-Robert

[The Visitor]

Darkwing wrote:

> If the plaintiff in a lawsuit had to pay for the defendants legal bills if
> the plaintiff loses (like in Europe)

Canada

[Peter R.]

On 3/5/2007 3:05:54 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:

> I think you're talking about the Overmyer crash. That was a VK-30 not
> the SR20/22. The elevator jammed.

No, it was an SR20. You made me get off my lazy bum to look it up in the NTSB
database.

Here is the accident of which I was thinking. Back in 1999 a Cirrus test
pilot was killed when the aileron jammed:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00274&key=1

Small quote from the report:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

the lack of sufficient aileron-to-wing gap clearance design.

--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

Stupid pilots kill themselves every day and their families
just can't say, "the dumb **** screwed up" and they sue.
Since juries NEVER have an engineer or pilot [lawyers
exclude them in the selection process] you get bad awards.

The NTSB is not the final word, but when they point out a
real problem in design, it usually results in a design
change and an AD note.



"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| On 3/5/2007 3:05:54 PM, Ron Natalie wrote:
|
| > I think you're talking about the Overmyer crash. That
was a VK-30 not
| > the SR20/22. The elevator jammed.
|
| No, it was an SR20. You made me get off my lazy bum to
look it up in the NTSB
| database.
|
| Here is the accident of which I was thinking. Back in 1999
a Cirrus test
| pilot was killed when the aileron jammed:
|
|
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00274&key=1
|
| Small quote from the report:
|
| The National Transportation Safety Board determines the
probable cause(s) of
| this accident as follows:
|
| the lack of sufficient aileron-to-wing gap clearance
design.
|
| --
| Peter

[Peter R.]

On 3/5/2007 3:08:03 PM, "chris" wrote:

> This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
> something wrong with Americans!

Um, it's not Americans, but rather the American legal system about which you
are complaining. As an American, I can tell you that I am just as ****ed off
about these types of lawsuits as perhaps the majority of us are. These types
of lawsuits have really changed our society for the worse over the last
thirty years.

If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I was
riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile pulled out of
a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right. I was unable to
avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted over the top of the
car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.

The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my medical
expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and didn't bother
suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite the fact that it
would have been an open-and-shut case.


--
Peter

[Ross]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:50 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
>>I guess we all knew this was gonna happen...
>>
>>I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
>>suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
>>Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
>>the cause. Unbelievable. They claim the feds' data show Cirrus
>>aircraft having a history of aileron failures and other accidents
>>involving flight control failures. I've read about quite a few Cirrus
>>accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
>>system failure(?)
>>
>>So they go after the engine mfr (did it quit on them?) and the
>>propeller mfr (did it fall off?) and the autopilot mfr (did George fly
>>them into the building?) The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
>>effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.
>
>
> Anyone named in the initial action is no longer protected by time. If
> you wait too long you can't file against anyone. You always name
> anyone who could possibly be named in the first round. Usually you end
> up with 1 or 2 named by the time you make an offer.
>
> -Robert
>

What is really sad is that some companies will settle out of court to
avoid paying all the legal costs that can come with some insane jury.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ash Wyllie]

Robert M. Gary opined

>On Mar 5, 12:58 pm, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If the plaintiff in a lawsuit had to pay for the defendants legal bills if
>> the plaintiff loses (like in Europe) most of this frivolous suing BS would
>> go away. Well I'm off to pour hot coffee all over my crotch.

>Actually, if you want real legal reform all you would need to is to
>cause punitive damages to go to someone/something other than the
>claimant. The legal system makes the person whole through actual
>damages (pain and suffering, lose of income, expenses, etc). Giving
>punitive damages to this person never made any sense to me at all.
>Allow attorneys to still collect a percentage of the punitive but the
>rest should go somewhere else (even to the bottom of the ocean would
>be better).

But who?

If punitive awards go to the state, it would become a revenue source. How long
would it take for every trial end up with punitive damages?

Giving the money to charities would be better, but I suspect that there would
still be problems.

Better to just ban punitive damages.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ash Wyllie wrote:

>
> Better to just ban punitive damages.
>


I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
should be levied.

On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
should be levied.

One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:45:31 GMT, Dallas wrote:
>
>> Pretty interesting story:
>> http://tinyurl.com/279z8s
>
> They make finding part 2 of the story a bit difficult so here's a link to
> the conclusion:

Remember to take this reporting with a grain of salt. This, after all, a
report from ANN, the illustrious publication of the "Captain Zoom."

More factual reporting can be had at a hairdresser shop.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

> Since juries NEVER have an engineer or pilot [lawyers
> exclude them in the selection process] you get bad awards.

So that explains why at 42, I have never been called for Jury duty! I
am both an engineer and a pilot...

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 5, 2:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
> > Better to just ban punitive damages.
>
> I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
> as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
> that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
> than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
> should be levied.
>
> On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
> could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
> should be levied.
>
> One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.

I think you missed the point. Yes, we should have punitive damages.
However, they should not be a lotto ticket for the claimant. If a
regulator found a problem in the design would they randomly find a car
owner and give them the fine money? Why should the legal system work
that way???

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 5, 12:58 pm, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "chris" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" > wrote:
> >> "Kingfish" > wrote
>
> >> > I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
> >> > suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
> >> > Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
> >> > the cause. Unbelievable.
>
> >> They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
> >> constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when
> >> it
> >> is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor
> >> up
> >> the river that far, etc.
>
> >> Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably
> >> was -
> >> what a shocker.
>
> >> BDS
>
> > Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
> > something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
> > responsibility??
>
> If the plaintiff in a lawsuit had to pay for the defendants legal bills if
> the plaintiff loses (like in Europe) most of this frivolous suing BS would
> go away. Well I'm off to pour hot coffee all over my crotch.

Europe is getting much more litigious every day. I've seen estimates
that their legal system will be parallel to the U.S. in about 8 years.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 5, 10:50 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:

> The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
> effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.

It's intention. It's called JSL (Joint and Several Liability). It's
the "Deep Pockets" theory coded into law!!

-Robert

[Judah]

"Peter R." > wrote in
:

> If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I
> was riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile
> pulled out of a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right.
> I was unable to avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted
> over the top of the car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.
>
> The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my
> medical expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and
> didn't bother suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite
> the fact that it would have been an open-and-shut case.

In 1985 it might have been an open-and-shut case.

If that accident were to have happened today, you would have been lucky to
get off so easy - the attorneys for the driver of the other vehicle would
have taken everything as contingency for their suit against you...

[Morgans[_2_]]

<deanwil> wrote

> So that explains why at 42, I have never been called for Jury duty! I
> am both an engineer and a pilot...

Nah... You would be perfect for a malpractice case. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 3:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
> > Better to just ban punitive damages.
>
> I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
> as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
> that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
> than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
> should be levied.
>
> On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
> could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
> should be levied.
>
> One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.

There is a place for punitive damages, sure. But...
I don't know of any other part of our legal system where citizens can
actually exact a punishment against someone. We usually--and
properly--reserve punishment as a function of our government at some
layer. Punitive damages is nothing more than one person financially
punishing another. And as we've seen, juries dole out the punishment
as much for sympathy for the victim as they do punishment for
wrongdoing.

What to do with the punitive damage money? That's a problem, in times
when governments tend to enact financial punishment (fines) for
financial gain instead of simply control. Certainly the involved
government should not benefit. If it went to charities, the judge/
jury might be punitive just to benefit a charity. How 'bout this:
pay the punitive damages in cash, and burn it. Punishment exacted; no
one benefits.

I like the idea of lawyers not getting a cut of the punitive
damages!!!!!

[chris[_1_]]

On Mar 6, 11:07 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 3/5/2007 3:08:03 PM, "chris" wrote:
>
> > This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
> > something wrong with Americans!
>
> Um, it's not Americans, but rather the American legal system about which you
> are complaining. As an American, I can tell you that I am just as ****ed off
> about these types of lawsuits as perhaps the majority of us are. These types
> of lawsuits have really changed our society for the worse over the last
> thirty years.
>
> If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I was
> riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile pulled out of
> a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right. I was unable to
> avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted over the top of the
> car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.
>
> The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my medical
> expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and didn't bother
> suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite the fact that it
> would have been an open-and-shut case.
>
> --
> Peter

I understand. It just seems that from what we see of the USA the
place seems to be filled with gung-ho rednecks who sue at the drop of
a hat.. Or that's how the media seems to portray it.. No offense to
those with normal coloured necks :-)

In NZ we have a system called ACC, or Accident Compensation, run by
the government. As I understand it if you go on ACC you are prevented
from suing.

So for us, the idea of suing someone is a completely alien concept.

[Jose]

> How 'bout this:
> pay the punitive damages in cash, and burn it. Punishment exacted; no
> one benefits.

Actually, that is the same as handing it to the IRS. Remember, "money"
is just an IOU from the government. Burn the IOU, you give money to the
government.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Kingfish wrote:
> I guess we all knew this was gonna happen...
>
> I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
> suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
> Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
> the cause. Unbelievable. They claim the feds' data show Cirrus
> aircraft having a history of aileron failures and other accidents
> involving flight control failures. I've read about quite a few Cirrus
> accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
> system failure(?)
>
> So they go after the engine mfr (did it quit on them?) and the
> propeller mfr (did it fall off?) and the autopilot mfr (did George fly
> them into the building?) The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
> effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.
>

I think the widow should sue the person who built the building. After
all, anyone with half a brain knows that building a building more than 3
stories tall is just asking for trouble with airplanes.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:07 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
>> On 3/5/2007 3:08:03 PM, "chris" wrote:
>>
>>> This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
>>> something wrong with Americans!
>> Um, it's not Americans, but rather the American legal system about which you
>> are complaining. As an American, I can tell you that I am just as ****ed off
>> about these types of lawsuits as perhaps the majority of us are. These types
>> of lawsuits have really changed our society for the worse over the last
>> thirty years.
>>
>> If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I was
>> riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile pulled out of
>> a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right. I was unable to
>> avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted over the top of the
>> car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.
>>
>> The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my medical
>> expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and didn't bother
>> suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite the fact that it
>> would have been an open-and-shut case.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> I understand. It just seems that from what we see of the USA the
> place seems to be filled with gung-ho rednecks who sue at the drop of
> a hat.. Or that's how the media seems to portray it.. No offense to
> those with normal coloured necks :-)

Actually, rednecks are about the least likely to sue. It is the rich,
urban folks that tend to sue. Rednecks have more direct ways to gain
compensation or extract revenge. :-)

Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:

> I like the idea of lawyers not getting a cut of the punitive
> damages!!!!!


Ideally, I agree. Practically, there is no way you would ever get
anything passed if the attorneys don't get a cut. The trail lawyers
groups can play the "big company" card. They claim any laws that
reduce punitive damages are just gifts to big corporations (which are
evil by nature) at the expense of the poor, the under privileges and
the unbathed.

-Robert

[C J Campbell]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:56:11 -0700, Gig 601XL Builder wrote
(in article >):

> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
>>
>> Better to just ban punitive damages.
>>
>
>
> I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
> as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
> that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
> than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
> should be levied.

Why? If actual damages are paid for then the company has behaved responsibly.
In fact, all warranties are based on the idea that it is cheaper to fix a few
flawed items than to prevent any flawed item from leaving the loading dock. A
warranty is nothing more than an insurance policy that the buyer is forced to
pay for.

I see no reason for punitive damages if the plaintiffs are being made whole.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:07:16 -0700, Peter R. wrote
(in article >):

> On 3/5/2007 3:08:03 PM, "chris" wrote:
>
>> This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
>> something wrong with Americans!
>
> Um, it's not Americans, but rather the American legal system about which you
> are complaining. As an American, I can tell you that I am just as ****ed off
> about these types of lawsuits as perhaps the majority of us are. These types
> of lawsuits have really changed our society for the worse over the last
> thirty years.
>
> If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I was
> riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile pulled out of
> a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right. I was unable to
> avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted over the top of the
> car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.
>
> The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my medical
> expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and didn't bother
> suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite the fact that it
> would have been an open-and-shut case.
>
>
>

Same here. I was riding my bicycle (I used to do triathlon) and a car coming
the other way turned left in front of me and hit me head on. The driver was
uninsured (she already had 7 outstanding traffic tickets, and got two more
because of the accident), so my uninsured motorist policy ended up covering
my medical bills and my homeowners policy replaced the $3000 bicycle. They
told me I was entitled to compensation for pain and suffering. I just
thought, what -- how much would I charge to allow someone to hit me with
their car? It was ridiculous. So I let it go. But the fact is it compressed
my spine, took away my ability to run, swim or ride, and left me with
annoying pain for the rest of my life. Luckily, I am still able to fly.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 5, 5:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
> > Better to just ban punitive damages.
>
> I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
> as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
> that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
> than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
> should be levied.
>
> On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
> could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
> should be levied.
>
> One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.



My problem is not with the legal system, but with the judges who go
along with these frivolous suits. Don't they have the authority to
step in and say enough is enough?

[Roger[_4_]]

On 5 Mar 2007 12:08:06 -0800, "chris" >
wrote:

>On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" > wrote:
>> "Kingfish" > wrote
>>
>> > I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
>> > suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
>> > Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
>> > the cause. Unbelievable.
>>
>> They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
>> constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when it
>> is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor up
>> the river that far, etc.
>>
>> Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably was -
>> what a shocker.
>>
>> BDS
>
>Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
>something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
>responsibility??

Are you kidding?

Over here if you get a speeding ticket it's the cop's fault for
following too close.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[BDS]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote

> From:
>
> >So that explains why at 42, I have never been called for Jury duty! I
> >am both an engineer and a pilot...
>
> Same here. I've had to show up to sit in the jury pool nearly a dozen
> times.

I am in the same situation (engineer and pilot) and was called to jury duty
a few years ago on a case that involved a lawsuit. During the questioning I
told them that I thought that there were too many frivilous lawsuits and
that the awards were ridiculous. I couldn't believe it - I got selected
anyway.

BDS

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On Mar 5, 5:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>>
>>> Better to just ban punitive damages.
>> I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
>> as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
>> that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
>> than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
>> should be levied.
>>
>> On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
>> could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
>> should be levied.
>>
>> One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.
>
>
>
> My problem is not with the legal system, but with the judges who go
> along with these frivolous suits. Don't they have the authority to
> step in and say enough is enough?

Judges are no longer part of the legal system?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

BDS wrote:
> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote
>
>> From:
>>
>>> So that explains why at 42, I have never been called for Jury duty! I
>>> am both an engineer and a pilot...
>> Same here. I've had to show up to sit in the jury pool nearly a dozen
>> times.
>
> I am in the same situation (engineer and pilot) and was called to jury duty
> a few years ago on a case that involved a lawsuit. During the questioning I
> told them that I thought that there were too many frivilous lawsuits and
> that the awards were ridiculous. I couldn't believe it - I got selected
> anyway.

You were obviously too transparent in your attempt to avoid jury duty! :-)

Matt

[Denny]

>
> Anyone named in the initial action is no longer protected by time. If
> you wait too long you can't file against anyone. You always name
> anyone who could possibly be named in the first round. Usually you end
> up with 1 or 2 named by the time you make an offer.
>
> -Robert

Yup, the shotgun method of filing suit has me named as a 'sued
physician' - even though the judge ordered me dropped from the suit
for lack of involvement...
The fact that I had nothing to do with the person, that I wasn't even
physically in town during the week she was injured and hospitalized
and treated by other physicians, does not matter, I was named in a
suit and that is that...
26 years later I still have to report every year on insurance
applications, medical staff renewals, to the government, etc., that I
was sued in 1981...
God, I love our legal system...

denny

[BDS[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> You were obviously too transparent in your attempt to avoid jury duty!
:-)

I guess so. That probably also means that saying "I can tell guilty people
just by looking at them" won't work in a criminal trial either. :>)

BDS

[Peter R.]

On 3/6/2007 12:36:08 AM, C J Campbell wrote:

> So I let it go. But the fact is it compressed
> my spine, took away my ability to run, swim or ride, and left me with
> annoying pain for the rest of my life. Luckily, I am still able to fly.

That is really unfortunate. Sorry to read that, CJ.

--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

Just mention jury nullification, civil or criminal and
you're out.
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"BDS" > wrote in message
et...
|
| "Matt Whiting" > wrote
|
| > You were obviously too transparent in your attempt to
avoid jury duty!
| :-)
|
| I guess so. That probably also means that saying "I can
tell guilty people
| just by looking at them" won't work in a criminal trial
either. :>)
|
| BDS
|
|

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>>
>>> Better to just ban punitive damages.
>>
>> I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an
>> manufacture as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do
>> the math and decide that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of
>> damage awards in the future than to recall the items and fix them.
>> This is a case where punitive damages should be levied.
>>
>> On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before
>> a recall could take place there are injuries. This is where no
>> punitive damages should be levied.
>>
>> One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive
>> damages.
>
> I think you missed the point. Yes, we should have punitive damages.
> However, they should not be a lotto ticket for the claimant. If a
> regulator found a problem in the design would they randomly find a car
> owner and give them the fine money? Why should the legal system work
> that way???
>
> -Robert

No I understood the point of the message I replied to exactly. Hell, I even
quoted it but I'll do so again.

>> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>>
>>> Better to just ban punitive damages.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:56:11 -0700, Gig 601XL Builder wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Better to just ban punitive damages.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an
>> manufacture as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do
>> the math and decide that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of
>> damage awards in the future than to recall the items and fix them.
>> This is a case where punitive damages should be levied.
>
> Why? If actual damages are paid for then the company has behaved
> responsibly. In fact, all warranties are based on the idea that it is
> cheaper to fix a few flawed items than to prevent any flawed item
> from leaving the loading dock. A warranty is nothing more than an
> insurance policy that the buyer is forced to pay for.
>
> I see no reason for punitive damages if the plaintiffs are being made
> whole.

Because you could very well find that many companies will find it cheaper to
pay the actual damages than fix a life threating problem.

[Darkwing]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Kingfish wrote:
>> I guess we all knew this was gonna happen...
>>
>> I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
>> suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
>> Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
>> the cause. Unbelievable. They claim the feds' data show Cirrus
>> aircraft having a history of aileron failures and other accidents
>> involving flight control failures. I've read about quite a few Cirrus
>> accidents on this forum and don't recall anything about a control
>> system failure(?)
>>
>> So they go after the engine mfr (did it quit on them?) and the
>> propeller mfr (did it fall off?) and the autopilot mfr (did George fly
>> them into the building?) The "Deep Pockets" theory is still in
>> effect I 'spose... Ugh. Our legal system needs an enema.
>>
>
> I think the widow should sue the person who built the building. After
> all, anyone with half a brain knows that building a building more than 3
> stories tall is just asking for trouble with airplanes.
>
>
> Matt

Might as well sue God for inventing the electromagnetic field since that
prevented the plane from passing through the building unscathed.

-----------------------------------------
DW

[Al G[_1_]]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" > wrote:
>> "Kingfish" > wrote
>>
>> > I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
>> > suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
>> > Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
>> > the cause. Unbelievable.
>>
>> They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
>> constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when
>> it
>> is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor
>> up
>> the river that far, etc.
>>
>> Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably
>> was -
>> what a shocker.
>>
>> BDS
>
> Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
> something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
> responsibility??
>

Bloody Hell, this is why Americans think there is something wrong with
America!

What on earth could Hartzel do differently? No matter where this goes, they
have to defend themselves. No matter where that goes, the cost gets added to
the product. At what point does a lawsuit get labeled "Frivolous" We all get
to pay for this.

Al G

[RST Engineering]

Would you sue a defenseless entity? Everybody knows God can't get a lawyer;
there are no lawyers in heaven (except Tony).

Jim



"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...


>
> Might as well sue God for inventing the electromagnetic field since that
> prevented the plane from passing through the building unscathed.
>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 8:13 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> chris wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 11:07 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> >> On 3/5/2007 3:08:03 PM, "chris" wrote:
>
> >>> This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
> >>> something wrong with Americans!
> >> Um, it's not Americans, but rather the American legal system about which you
> >> are complaining. As an American, I can tell you that I am just as ****ed off
> >> about these types of lawsuits as perhaps the majority of us are. These types
> >> of lawsuits have really changed our society for the worse over the last
> >> thirty years.
>
> >> If it makes you feel any better about some of us here, back in 1985 I was
> >> riding my motorcycle down a two-lane street when an automobile pulled out of
> >> a driveway and crossed right in front of me left to right. I was unable to
> >> avoid the car, hit the driver's side door and catapulted over the top of the
> >> car. It was clearly the other driver's fault.
>
> >> The insurance company covered my lost income while I recovered, my medical
> >> expenses, and damage to my motorcycle. I let it go at that and didn't bother
> >> suing them for large amounts of pain and suffering despite the fact that it
> >> would have been an open-and-shut case.
>
> >> --
> >> Peter
>
> > I understand. It just seems that from what we see of the USA the
> > place seems to be filled with gung-ho rednecks who sue at the drop of
> > a hat.. Or that's how the media seems to portray it.. No offense to
> > those with normal coloured necks :-)
>
> Actually, rednecks are about the least likely to sue. It is the rich,
> urban folks that tend to sue. Rednecks have more direct ways to gain
> compensation or extract revenge. :-)
>
> Matt

My own observation is that just about anyone in a position to sue for
big bucks probably will.
After all, it's my turn!

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 7:39 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:

> Because you could very well find that many companies will find it cheaper to
> pay the actual damages than fix a life threating problem.

I find it difficult to paint with an overly broad brush...

I'm certain that there are far too many people who DO make such a
calculation.

I'm also certain that many calculate that the product won't sell at
all, or will be too expensive to sell, etc., if, for example, some
particular safety item were installed. (Look at Taser; they sell a
disabling item that cops can use instead of bullets. A lot of people
are alive because of this technology. A few are dead because of some
medical condition or drug use complication. But Taser gets sued. So
maybe the cops should have used the high-speed lead?????

I'm also aware that way too many people won't put on their seat belt,
but will then sue the city for putting the light pole too close to the
street. Some lawyer will take the case; some judge will let it go; and
some jury will feel sorry for them. And they'll get money because the
city was "X% negligent". Here's an idea: If the city is less than
50% negligent, the sue-er should be ordered to pay for the lamp post
instead of getting money.

[C J Campbell]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:02:22 -0800, Roger wrote
(in article >):

> On 5 Mar 2007 12:08:06 -0800, "chris" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "BDS" > wrote:
>>> "Kingfish" > wrote
>>>
>>>> I read this on AvWeb this morning - not only is Cirrus named in the
>>>> suit, but also Teledyne, Hartzel, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice
>>>> Aviation (whoever they are). And this *before* the NTSB has determined
>>>> the cause. Unbelievable.
>>>
>>> They left out the company that made the bricks that the building was
>>> constructed of, the City of New York for allowing it to be put there when
>>> it
>>> is an obvious hazard to aircraft, the FAA for extending the VFR corridor up
>>> the river that far, etc.
>>>
>>> Gee, the only person they left out was the guy who's fault it probably was
>>> -
>>> what a shocker.
>>>
>>> BDS
>>
>> Bloody hell.. This is why the rest of the world thinks there is
>> something wrong with Americans! Anybody heard of personal
>> responsibility??
>
> Are you kidding?
>
> Over here if you get a speeding ticket it's the cop's fault for
> following too close.

I have a sister who got a speeding ticket thrown out of court by arguing
precisely that.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Eduardo K.]

In article >,
RST Engineering > wrote:
>Would you sue a defenseless entity? Everybody knows God can't get a lawyer;
>there are no lawyers in heaven (except Tony).
>

in this country a layer once presented a motion in the name of Jesus
to prevent the selling of a contraceptive and it was accepted...



--
Eduardo K. | Some say it's forgive and forget.
http://www.carfun.cl | I say forget about forgiving just accept.
http://e.nn.cl | And get the hell out of town.
http://ev.nn.cl | Minnie Driver, Grosse Point Blank