Comair Accident pilot sues...

[[email protected]]

Well, after one of the most idiotic accidents in US air carrier
history, we have (as expected) a bunch of lawsuits. But now we have a
new one...the 'pilot' who flew Comair 5191 off the wrong runaway,
killing all of his passenegrs has decided it really isn't HIS fault
that he didn't follow sterile cockpit rules, and that he didn't verify
he was on the correct runway, and that he didn't even think about the
fact that he was on an unlighted runway that is half the width of the
standard runway, and that he ignored multiple airline rules and
procedures...he has decided that it is the fault of the company that
installed the lighting on the CORRECT runway. The story is at

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/BIZ01/708280392

So when we complain about stupid lawsuits that end up hurting us as
pilots, and end up hurting aviation as a whole? Here is one of our own
(altho I don't consider James Polehinke, the FO in question, a pilot
in any sense of the word, since he so egregiously abused his position,
and [thank God] he will never fly again) filing an absurd lawsuit
refusing to acknowledge that he and the equally incompetent Captain
were the ones at fault for the death of 49 passengers. Ahh...the
American Justice system in action.

Cap

[S Green]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well, after one of the most idiotic accidents in US air carrier
> history, we have (as expected) a bunch of lawsuits. But now we have a
> new one...the 'pilot' who flew Comair 5191 off the wrong runaway,
> killing all of his passenegrs has decided it really isn't HIS fault
> that he didn't follow sterile cockpit rules, and that he didn't verify
> he was on the correct runway, and that he didn't even think about the
> fact that he was on an unlighted runway that is half the width of the
> standard runway, and that he ignored multiple airline rules and
> procedures...he has decided that it is the fault of the company that
> installed the lighting on the CORRECT runway. The story is at
>
> http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/BIZ01/708280392
>
> So when we complain about stupid lawsuits that end up hurting us as
> pilots, and end up hurting aviation as a whole? Here is one of our own
> (altho I don't consider James Polehinke, the FO in question, a pilot
> in any sense of the word, since he so egregiously abused his position,
> and [thank God] he will never fly again) filing an absurd lawsuit
> refusing to acknowledge that he and the equally incompetent Captain
> were the ones at fault for the death of 49 passengers. Ahh...the
> American Justice system in action.

We get the justice system we deserve.

[[email protected]]

> So when we complain about stupid lawsuits that end up hurting us as
> pilots, and end up hurting aviation as a whole? Here is one of our own
> (altho I don't consider James Polehinke, the FO in question, a pilot
> in any sense of the word, since he so egregiously abused his position,
> and [thank God] he will never fly again) filing an absurd lawsuit
> refusing to acknowledge that he and the equally incompetent Captain
> were the ones at fault for the death of 49 passengers. Ahh...the
> American Justice system in action.
>
> Cap

Clearly he is just trying to cover his own ass by blame-shifting.

Dean

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"S Green" > wrote:

> We get the justice system we deserve.

Legal system. If only it were just.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

wrote:

>> So when we complain about stupid lawsuits that end up hurting us as
>> pilots, and end up hurting aviation as a whole? Here is one of our own
>> (altho I don't consider James Polehinke, the FO in question, a pilot
>> in any sense of the word, since he so egregiously abused his position,
>> and [thank God] he will never fly again) filing an absurd lawsuit
>> refusing to acknowledge that he and the equally incompetent Captain
>> were the ones at fault for the death of 49 passengers. Ahh...the
>> American Justice system in action.
>>
>> Cap
>
>Clearly he is just trying to cover his own ass by blame-shifting.
>
>Dean
>

Who does he expect to fool? If this goes to trial the jury should be
full of pilots (mostly GA types).

Ron Lee

[Gattman[_2_]]

>> We get the justice system we deserve.

I don't know how to agree with that. I've never sued anyone.

-c

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

wrote:

> Here is one of our own filing an absurd lawsuit
>refusing to acknowledge that he and the equally incompetent Captain
>were the ones at fault for the death of 49 passengers. Ahh...the
>American Justice system in action.
>
>Cap
He did receive "severe traumatic brain injury". Frivolous lawsuit as symptom
of cerebral insult.
That would help explain some other legal assertions of historical note.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

wrote:

> Here is one of our own filing an absurd lawsuit
>refusing to acknowledge that he and the equally incompetent Captain
>were the ones at fault for the death of 49 passengers. Ahh...the
>American Justice system in action.
>
>Cap
He did receive "severe traumatic brain injury". Frivolous lawsuit as symptom
of cerebral insult.
That would help explain some other legal assertions of historical note.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1

[tom418]

So, by that Comair F/O's twisted logic: If I am in a bus accident in New
York, I can sue one of the taxicab companies since, if they were better
drivers, I would have taken a cab and not the bus, and avoided the bus
accident. LOL!!!!
"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:77632514bd212@uwe...
> wrote:
>
> > Here is one of our own filing an absurd lawsuit
> >refusing to acknowledge that he and the equally incompetent Captain
> >were the ones at fault for the death of 49 passengers. Ahh...the
> >American Justice system in action.
> >
> >Cap
> He did receive "severe traumatic brain injury". Frivolous lawsuit as
symptom
> of cerebral insult.
> That would help explain some other legal assertions of historical note.
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.com
> http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1
>

[Luke Skywalker]

On Aug 28, 8:39 am, wrote:
> Well, after one of the most idiotic accidents in US air carrier
> history, we have (as expected) a bunch of lawsuits. But now we have a
> new one...the 'pilot' who flew Comair 5191 off the wrong runaway,
> killing all of his passenegrs has decided it really isn't HIS fault
> that he didn't follow sterile cockpit rules, and that he didn't verify
> he was on the correct runway, and that he didn't even think about the
> fact that he was on an unlighted runway that is half the width of the
> standard runway, and that he ignored multiple airline rules and
> procedures...he has decided that it is the fault of the company that
> installed the lighting on the CORRECT runway. The story is at
>
> http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/BIZ01/70...
>
> So when we complain about stupid lawsuits that end up hurting us as
> pilots, and end up hurting aviation as a whole? Here is one of our own
> (altho I don't consider James Polehinke, the FO in question, a pilot
> in any sense of the word, since he so egregiously abused his position,
> and [thank God] he will never fly again) filing an absurd lawsuit
> refusing to acknowledge that he and the equally incompetent Captain
> were the ones at fault for the death of 49 passengers. Ahh...the
> American Justice system in action.
>
> Cap

Well...........................................

Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Wow, you guys take this stuff pretty seriously. Its just legal
manuervering.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who does he expect to fool? If this goes to trial the jury should be
> full of pilots (mostly GA types).
>

Anyone with any aviation background will be excluded from the jury. Bias.

[Ron Natalie]

He departed on a runway without runway lights in violation of
his company opspecs requiring lights (which have the wait of
FARs) and he blames the manufacturer of the lights?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> Wow, you guys take this stuff pretty seriously. Its just legal
> manuervering.

Maybe, but the costs for "legal maneuvering" come out of our pockets.



JKG

[Montblack]

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
> Wow, you guys take this stuff pretty seriously. Its just legal
> manuervering.


Much like a lawyer "falling" off a bridge...


Paul-Mont :-))))))) & )))))))

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> Wow, you guys take this stuff pretty seriously. Its just legal
>> manuervering.
>
> Maybe, but the costs for "legal maneuvering" come out of our pockets.
>
>
>
> JKG

So, how much do you think YOU are goinf to save if the FO doesn't do what he
needs to do to defend himself?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> So, how much do you think YOU are goinf to save if the FO doesn't do what
> he needs to do to defend himself?

What has the FO been charged with?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So, how much do you think YOU are goinf to save if the FO doesn't do
>> what he needs to do to defend himself?
>
> What has the FO been charged with?

....defend himself from the possible civil claims against him.

What it boils down to is which insurance company is going to pay what.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> ...defend himself from the possible civil claims against him.
>

Those would be valid claims, his suit is not.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> >> So, how much do you think YOU are goinf to save if the FO doesn't do
> >> what he needs to do to defend himself?
> >
> > What has the FO been charged with?
>
> ...defend himself from the possible civil claims against him.
>
> What it boils down to is which insurance company is going to pay what.


It seems that if he's responsible, the claims against him are valid. He
should accept responsibility and not try to shift blame onto someone
else. Keep in mind that companies don't pay for anything, every dollar
a company spends comes out of YOUR pocket.




JKG

[Jim Stewart]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>> So, how much do you think YOU are goinf to save if the FO doesn't do
>>>> what he needs to do to defend himself?
>>> What has the FO been charged with?
>> ...defend himself from the possible civil claims against him.
>>
>> What it boils down to is which insurance company is going to pay what.
>
>
> It seems that if he's responsible, the claims against him are valid. He
> should accept responsibility and not try to shift blame onto someone
> else. Keep in mind that companies don't pay for anything, every dollar
> a company spends comes out of YOUR pocket.

This brings up an interesting question. Do
airlines generally cover personal claims against
their employees? I would think that unless a
crime was committed, they would.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>> So, how much do you think YOU are goinf to save if the FO doesn't
>>>> do what he needs to do to defend himself?
>>>
>>> What has the FO been charged with?
>>
>> ...defend himself from the possible civil claims against him.
>>
>> What it boils down to is which insurance company is going to pay
>> what.
>
>
> It seems that if he's responsible, the claims against him are valid.
> He should accept responsibility and not try to shift blame onto
> someone else. Keep in mind that companies don't pay for anything,
> every dollar a company spends comes out of YOUR pocket.
>

If his lawyers didn't do everything possible to shift at least some of the
liability from their client they would be guilty of malpractice. And it
isn't just the FO that is sueing it is the widow of the captain as well.

And to say that companies don't pay for anything is silly. Comair for
example doesn't operate in a vacume. They can't raise thier fares just
because they get hit with a liability suit.

If you continue your logic out, nothing comes out of your pocket either
because you got your money from somewhere and so they are really footing the
bill.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Who does he expect to fool? If this goes to trial the jury should be
>> full of pilots (mostly GA types).
>>
>
>Anyone with any aviation background will be excluded from the jury. Bias.
>
>
Bias my derrierre. The guy screwed up royally.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>>
>> ...defend himself from the possible civil claims against him.
>>
>
>Those would be valid claims, his suit is not.
>
>
I concur...but I am biased.

Ron Lee

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bias my derrierre. The guy screwed up royally.
>

He certainly did. This accident was caused solely by human error, and all
of the errors occurred in the cockpit. Nevertheless, anyone with an
aviation background will be deemed biased and eliminated from the jury.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

> >Those would be valid claims, his suit is not.
> >
> I concur...but I am biased.

Being biased and correct are not mutually exclusive.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[John Godwin]

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> Being biased and correct are not mutually exclusive.
>
I agree but the attorneys are looking for ignorant.


--

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>>> Those would be valid claims, his suit is not.
>>>
>> I concur...but I am biased.
>
> Being biased and correct are not mutually exclusive.
>

No but being knowledgeable and being a juror in the US are mutually
exclusive.

Matt

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Jim Stewart > wrote:
> This brings up an interesting question. Do
> airlines generally cover personal claims against
> their employees? I would think that unless a
> crime was committed, they would.

Either way, it doesn't matter--you still pay for it.

I would agree that where there's negligence (as it appears there was in
this case), individuals and companies should be held accountable. But
who is really going to win in these lawsuits? Most likely, the lawyers
win and you (a completely uninvolved individual) pay for it.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> If his lawyers didn't do everything possible to shift at least some of the
> liability from their client they would be guilty of malpractice. And it
> isn't just the FO that is sueing it is the widow of the captain as well.

So it's okay to lie, as long as it helps you out? Sounds like you're
either advocating or validating the worst sterotype for lawyers.


> And to say that companies don't pay for anything is silly. Comair for
> example doesn't operate in a vacume. They can't raise thier fares just
> because they get hit with a liability suit.

Yes, they can, and yes, they do. Companies do not have their own money;
the only way companies get money is to accept what you give to them in
exchange for products or services.

A frivolous liability lawsuit does nothing but attempt to extort money
from the deep pockets of the company (or insurance company), which is
funded by the company's customers and investors, usually to the benefit
of the lawyers.

I'm all for holding negligent companies and individuals responsible
under the legal system. However, attempting to shift blame to a runway
lighting company or contractor who had absolutely ZERO honest liability
in this situation, is entirely frivolous. The accident was caused by
the mistakes of the flight crew, and inasmuch as that liability is
shared, by the company that employed them.



JKG

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> If his lawyers didn't do everything possible to shift at least some
>> of the liability from their client they would be guilty of
>> malpractice. And it isn't just the FO that is sueing it is the widow
>> of the captain as well.
>
> So it's okay to lie, as long as it helps you out? Sounds like you're
> either advocating or validating the worst sterotype for lawyers.
>
>
>> And to say that companies don't pay for anything is silly. Comair for
>> example doesn't operate in a vacume. They can't raise thier fares
>> just because they get hit with a liability suit.
>
> Yes, they can, and yes, they do. Companies do not have their own
> money; the only way companies get money is to accept what you give to
> them in exchange for products or services.
>
> A frivolous liability lawsuit does nothing but attempt to extort money
> from the deep pockets of the company (or insurance company), which is
> funded by the company's customers and investors, usually to the
> benefit of the lawyers.
>
> I'm all for holding negligent companies and individuals responsible
> under the legal system. However, attempting to shift blame to a
> runway lighting company or contractor who had absolutely ZERO honest
> liability in this situation, is entirely frivolous. The accident was
> caused by the mistakes of the flight crew, and inasmuch as that
> liability is shared, by the company that employed them.
>

This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it belongs.

[John Godwin]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it
> belongs.
>
If only they would do that.



--

[AustinMN]

On Aug 30, 9:25 am, Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> I'm all for holding negligent companies and individuals responsible
> under the legal system. However, attempting to shift blame to a runway
> lighting company or contractor who had absolutely ZERO honest liability
> in this situation, is entirely frivolous. The accident was caused by
> the mistakes of the flight crew, and inasmuch as that liability is
> shared, by the company that employed them.

While I am also convinced the flight crew was primarily at fault, I
can't agree that the lighting company/contractor had "absolutely ZERO
honest liability" in this situation. If you read the article, you
would know that:

> > On Aug. 25, 2006, the airport issued a notice to
> > pilots that "numerous lights" on the main runway
> > were out of service. That night, at 1:40 a.m. Aug.
> > 26, Polehinke landed at Lexington on a flight from
> > New York. The captain of that flight told the
> > NTSB that only about an eighth of the edge lights
> > on Runway 22 were lit.

I don't think this is a huge stretch. If nearly 90% of the lights on
4/22 were out the night before, it would not seem strange that 100% of
them were out the next morning. They were not primarily responsible,
but I really doubt that they have "ZERO honest" liability.

Not an excuse, but another link in the chain.

Austin

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> If his lawyers didn't do everything possible to shift at least some of
>> the
>> liability from their client they would be guilty of malpractice. And it
>> isn't just the FO that is sueing it is the widow of the captain as well.
>
> So it's okay to lie, as long as it helps you out? Sounds like you're
> either advocating or validating the worst sterotype for lawyers.
>
>
>> And to say that companies don't pay for anything is silly. Comair for
>> example doesn't operate in a vacume. They can't raise thier fares just
>> because they get hit with a liability suit.
>
> Yes, they can, and yes, they do. Companies do not have their own money;
> the only way companies get money is to accept what you give to them in
> exchange for products or services.

As Gig said, they don't operate in a vacuum -- they operate in an extremely
COMPETITIVE market that has little leeway for mistakes. For a company
operating on thin margins, such a hit may well prove fatal (no pun
intended). It's the economic version of Darwin's law (not to mention
Murphy's).


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY
--
“Nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding
the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental
advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve
to intimidate the public and even scientists...there is a clear attempt to
establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
- Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, (6-26-06)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>> In article >,
>>
>> I'm all for holding negligent companies and individuals responsible
>> under the legal system. However, attempting to shift blame to a
>> runway lighting company or contractor who had absolutely ZERO honest
>> liability in this situation, is entirely frivolous. The accident was
>> caused by the mistakes of the flight crew, and inasmuch as that
>> liability is shared, by the company that employed them.
>>
>
> This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it belongs.
Um...no, Gig!

We have a legal system to find deep pockets; we (ostensibly) have a Justice
system to assign liability.

Just thought I'd clear that up! :~)

Matt Barrow
--
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it
be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they
delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of
their lives." - Tolstoy

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"AustinMN" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> While I am also convinced the flight crew was primarily at fault, I
> can't agree that the lighting company/contractor had "absolutely ZERO
> honest liability" in this situation. If you read the article, you
> would know that:
>
>> > On Aug. 25, 2006, the airport issued a notice to
>> > pilots that "numerous lights" on the main runway
>> > were out of service. That night, at 1:40 a.m. Aug.
>> > 26, Polehinke landed at Lexington on a flight from
>> > New York. The captain of that flight told the
>> > NTSB that only about an eighth of the edge lights
>> > on Runway 22 were lit.
>
> I don't think this is a huge stretch. If nearly 90% of the lights on
> 4/22 were out the night before, it would not seem strange that 100% of
> them were out the next morning. They were not primarily responsible,
> but I really doubt that they have "ZERO honest" liability.
>
> Not an excuse, but another link in the chain.

So, to remove their liability, does the lighting company have to smack the
pilots over the head to get them to read the notice?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 30, 2:09 pm, AustinMN > wrote:
> On Aug 30, 9:25 am, Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> > I'm all for holding negligent companies and individuals responsible
> > under the legal system. However, attempting to shift blame to a runway
> > lighting company or contractor who had absolutely ZERO honest liability
> > in this situation, is entirely frivolous. The accident was caused by
> > the mistakes of the flight crew, and inasmuch as that liability is
> > shared, by the company that employed them.
>
> While I am also convinced the flight crew was primarily at fault, I
> can't agree that the lighting company/contractor had "absolutely ZERO
> honest liability" in this situation. If you read the article, you
> would know that:
>
> > > On Aug. 25, 2006, the airport issued a notice to
> > > pilots that "numerous lights" on the main runway
> > > were out of service. That night, at 1:40 a.m. Aug.
> > > 26, Polehinke landed at Lexington on a flight from
> > > New York. The captain of that flight told the
> > > NTSB that only about an eighth of the edge lights
> > > on Runway 22 were lit.
>
> I don't think this is a huge stretch. If nearly 90% of the lights on
> 4/22 were out the night before, it would not seem strange that 100% of
> them were out the next morning. They were not primarily responsible,
> but I really doubt that they have "ZERO honest" liability.
>
> Not an excuse, but another link in the chain.
>
> Austin

I'm afraid I must disagree. The PILOTS made the decision to take off,
even knowing the runway lights were shaky. The lighting company may
have been a number of things (i.e. in breach of their contract,
technically incompetent, etc.), but in terms of THIS accident? They
bear absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. None. Neither does the
controller who turned around after making sure they acknowledged the
correct runway. Nobosy else does, other than the two 'pilots' who were
charged with being professional enough to know not to takeoff from the
wrong runway.

While there are always multiple 'links' in the chain, that is vastly
different from 'responsibility'. There are always 'could haves'. But
in the end, a professional pilot is charged with making the correct
decisions, and being competent and professional enough to protect the
safety of those who have (literally) entrusted him with their lives.

If the pilots felt uncomfortable with the lighting situation, all
EITHER of them had to do was say "This is not safe, and I refuse to
takeoff from this runway. The airline can fire me if they wish, but
we're going back to the gate." While difficult to say, that would have
been ALL that was necessary to protect the lives of their passengers.
But they didn't. They didn't do LOTS of things that were their
responsibility to. How much more fundamental can a responsibility of a
pilot be than to make certain you are on the right runway????

The pilots here have 100% of the responsibility for this accident.
Other parties bear absolutely none.

I know it may sound pedantic and arrogant to say, but when you accept
a unique trust (in this case, a trust placed in you by your pasengers
to protect their lives, by virtue of your special skills,
professionalism, and understanding), you bear a deep and profound
obligation to honor that. Either one of these guys could have quit and
gone to work at McDonald's if they didn't feel up to the
responsibilities of being a professional pilot. Obviously they FELT up
to the task. They just weren't. And because of that, 48 innocent
people died (the Captain died by his own hand...I know it sounds
harsh, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for him, altho I feel sorry
for his family). Because of this I find it particuarly repugnant that
one of the 'pilots' who killed 49 human beings because of his
incompetence is trying to extort money from an INNOCENT party, to help
pay for injuries that nobody but him and his Captain are responsible
for.

Cheers,

Cap

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it belongs.

We don't have that.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it belongs.

Not much liability gets assigned to parties without assets.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)