Product Liability Suits Force Shipment Ceasation Of MSA Carburetors Used On Lycoming, Continental and Franklin Engines

[Larry Dighera]

Product Liability Suits Force Shipment Cessation Of MSA Carburetors
Used On Lycoming, Continental and Franklin Engines

AIRCRAFT CARBURETOR, PARTS SHIPMENTS STOPPED
(http://www.avweb.com/990-full.html#196505)
The company that makes the majority of carburetors and associated
replacement parts for the most popular general aviation engines
says it's stopped shipping as of Nov. 1 because it can't afford
the insurance. Precision Airmotive's MSA carbs are used on most of
the Lycoming, Continental and Franklin engines currently in
service and are also put on new engines. Precision spokesman Alan
Jesmer told AVweb in a podcast interview
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20071105a&kw=Related) that the
action resulted from the company's being named in numerous
lawsuits, regardless of the involvement of its products in the
incidents that gave rise to the suits. The cost of dealing with
the litigation marginalized the business. "Precision has seen its
liability insurance premiums rise dramatically, to the point that
the premium now exceeds the total sales dollars for this entire
product line," he said. Since the supply of carbs and replacement
parts for the majority of piston-powered aircraft can't simply be
allowed to dry up, Jesmer said Precision's action was a wake-up
call to the rest of the industry to get involved with the issue
and he expects some sort of resolution in the next week or so.
http://www.avweb.com/990-full.html#196505


Here's the manufacturer's statement:

http://www.precisionairmotive.com/pr-carbdiscon.htm
November 1, 2007

Precision Airmotive LLC has discontinued sales of all float
carburetors and component parts as of November 1, 2007. This
unfortunate situation is a result of our inability to obtain
product liability insurance for the product line. Precision
Airmotive LLC and its 43 employees currently manufacture and
support the float carburetors used in nearly all carbureted
general aviation aircraft flying today. Precision has been the
manufacturers of these carburetors since 1990. These FAA-approved
carburetors were designed as early as the 1930s and continue to
fly over a million flight hours a year. After decades of service,
the reliability of these carburetors speaks for itself.

Nonetheless, Precision has seen its liability insurance premiums
rise dramatically, to the point that the premium now exceeds the
total sales dollars for this entire product line. In the past, we
have absorbed that cost, with the hope that the aviation industry
as a whole would be able to help address this issue faced by
Precision Airmotive, as well as many other small aviation
companies. Our efforts have been unsuccessful.

This year, despite the decades of reliable service and despite the
design approval by the Federal Aviation Administration, Precision
Airmotive has been unable to obtain product liability insurance
for the carburetor product line. While we firmly believe that the
product is safe, as does the FAA, and well-supported by dedicated
people both at Precision and at our independent product support
centers, unfortunately the litigation costs for defending the
carburetor in court are unsustainable for a small business such as
Precision.

Therefore, as of November 1, 2007, Precision Airmotive LLC has
been left with no choice but to cease production and support of
its float carburetor line.

We are working with the engine manufacturers and others in the
industry in an attempt to minimize the impact on general aviation
and to provide future support for this product line. There is a
substantial quantity of parts and carburetors stocked at our
distributors, which should be sufficient to support the industry
for a short time.

14800 40th Avenue N.E. · Marysville , WA 98271 · USA · Phone:
(360) 651-8282 · Fax: (360) 651-8080


Tort Reform is a difficult issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform
The tort reform agenda
In general, tort reform advocates contend that there are too many
frivolous lawsuits.

The legal definition of a frivolous lawsuit is a legal action that
cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent or
under a good-faith argument for a change in the law, or one that
has no basis in fact.[1] The term has acquired a broader
rhetorical definition in political debates about tort reform,
where it is sometimes used by reform advocates to describe
successful tort lawsuits that critics believe are without merit,
or award high damages relative to actual damages.

Tort reform advocates argue that the present tort system is too
expensive, that meritless lawsuits clog up the courts, that per
capita tort costs vary significantly from state to state, and that
trial attorneys customarily receive an unusually large percentage
of the punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs in tort cases.
High-profile tort cases are often portrayed by the media as the
legal system's version of a lottery, where trial lawyers actively
seek the magic combination of plaintiff, defendant, judge, and
jury.

Advocates of tort reform also complain of unconstitutional
regulation caused by litigation. Proponents further argue that
litigation is used to circumvent the legislative process by
achieving regulation that Congress is unwilling or unable to pass.
A few of the changes frequently advocated include limits on
punitive damages, limits on non-economic damages, limiting the
collateral source doctrine, use of court-appointed expert
witnesses, elimination of elections for judges, reducing appeal
bond requirements for defendants faced with bankruptcy, "venue
reform", which limits the jurisdictions within which one can file
a lawsuit, limits on contingency fees, the adoption of the English
Rule of "loser pays" (the defeated party must pay both the
plaintiff's and the defendant's expenses), and requiring that
class action lawsuits with nationwide plaintiffs be tried in
federal courts, eliminating awards for pre-judgment interest.


It's clear from this advertisement, that something needs to be done:

http://www.atra.org/
ATRA Critical of Hellhole Lawyer's 'Heart Attack' Ad
Palm Beach, Florida-based personal injury lawyer Craig Goldenfarb
has taken trolling for new clients to an arresting new low -
cardiac arrest, that is. His advertisement, appearing on some taxi
cabs, suggests that people who have heart attacks in public places
should sue others for liability.

Neither Goldenfarb's ad nor Web site offers any information about
the personal choices that can lead to heart attacks, such as
eating or drinking or smoking too much and not getting enough
exercise. Apparently he'd rather we blame someone else for our
problems, and that mindset helps make Palm Beach and Miami-Dade
counties the collective judicial hellhole they are (see ATRA's
Judicial Hellholes® 2006 report which cited South Florida among
the nation's worst, most unfair jurisdictions in which to be
sued).

In a news release, ATRA director of communications Darren
McKinney said he found the ad's "opportunistic, ambulance-chasing
mentality" to be "truly sickening" and rhetorically asked: "So who
can I sue?" He added that "ATRA intends to keep reminding
consumers, taxpayers and voters in judicial hellholes that they
ultimately bear the costs for the lawsuit abuse that the Craig
Goldenfarbs of the world foment."



What has happened to the US? While it's a different issue, usury is
apparently no longer illegal either. I can recall when charging 10%
interest was considered usury and punishable under the law. Today
credit card companies routinely charge 25% interest. If that's not
unconscionable or exorbitant, what is?

I would characterize it as laissez-(un)faire capitalism.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Welcome to the future of General Aviation in the United States.
Before the lawyers are through, there won't be a company willing to
invest in a product anywhere in the United States....and this isn't just
in aviation either.

Health care, as well as other business with deep pockets has been, and
will be targeted until it collapses under the weight of litigation
and/or fear of litigation.
When you have a gullible and greedy public being steered and used by
lawyers willing to literally destroy businesses, lives, and fortunes in
order to divert these assets into their own coffers, this is what you
will get.
DH




Larry Dighera wrote:
> Product Liability Suits Force Shipment Cessation Of MSA Carburetors
> Used On Lycoming, Continental and Franklin Engines
>
> AIRCRAFT CARBURETOR, PARTS SHIPMENTS STOPPED
> (http://www.avweb.com/990-full.html#196505)
> The company that makes the majority of carburetors and associated
> replacement parts for the most popular general aviation engines
> says it's stopped shipping as of Nov. 1 because it can't afford
> the insurance. Precision Airmotive's MSA carbs are used on most of
> the Lycoming, Continental and Franklin engines currently in
> service and are also put on new engines. Precision spokesman Alan
> Jesmer told AVweb in a podcast interview
> (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20071105a&kw=Related) that the
> action resulted from the company's being named in numerous
> lawsuits, regardless of the involvement of its products in the
> incidents that gave rise to the suits. The cost of dealing with
> the litigation marginalized the business. "Precision has seen its
> liability insurance premiums rise dramatically, to the point that
> the premium now exceeds the total sales dollars for this entire
> product line," he said. Since the supply of carbs and replacement
> parts for the majority of piston-powered aircraft can't simply be
> allowed to dry up, Jesmer said Precision's action was a wake-up
> call to the rest of the industry to get involved with the issue
> and he expects some sort of resolution in the next week or so.
> http://www.avweb.com/990-full.html#196505
>
>
> Here's the manufacturer's statement:
>
> http://www.precisionairmotive.com/pr-carbdiscon.htm
> November 1, 2007
>
> Precision Airmotive LLC has discontinued sales of all float
> carburetors and component parts as of November 1, 2007. This
> unfortunate situation is a result of our inability to obtain
> product liability insurance for the product line. Precision
> Airmotive LLC and its 43 employees currently manufacture and
> support the float carburetors used in nearly all carbureted
> general aviation aircraft flying today. Precision has been the
> manufacturers of these carburetors since 1990. These FAA-approved
> carburetors were designed as early as the 1930s and continue to
> fly over a million flight hours a year. After decades of service,
> the reliability of these carburetors speaks for itself.
>
> Nonetheless, Precision has seen its liability insurance premiums
> rise dramatically, to the point that the premium now exceeds the
> total sales dollars for this entire product line. In the past, we
> have absorbed that cost, with the hope that the aviation industry
> as a whole would be able to help address this issue faced by
> Precision Airmotive, as well as many other small aviation
> companies. Our efforts have been unsuccessful.
>
> This year, despite the decades of reliable service and despite the
> design approval by the Federal Aviation Administration, Precision
> Airmotive has been unable to obtain product liability insurance
> for the carburetor product line. While we firmly believe that the
> product is safe, as does the FAA, and well-supported by dedicated
> people both at Precision and at our independent product support
> centers, unfortunately the litigation costs for defending the
> carburetor in court are unsustainable for a small business such as
> Precision.
>
> Therefore, as of November 1, 2007, Precision Airmotive LLC has
> been left with no choice but to cease production and support of
> its float carburetor line.
>
> We are working with the engine manufacturers and others in the
> industry in an attempt to minimize the impact on general aviation
> and to provide future support for this product line. There is a
> substantial quantity of parts and carburetors stocked at our
> distributors, which should be sufficient to support the industry
> for a short time.
>
> 14800 40th Avenue N.E. · Marysville , WA 98271 · USA · Phone:
> (360) 651-8282 · Fax: (360) 651-8080
>
>
> Tort Reform is a difficult issue:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform
> The tort reform agenda
> In general, tort reform advocates contend that there are too many
> frivolous lawsuits.
>
> The legal definition of a frivolous lawsuit is a legal action that
> cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent or
> under a good-faith argument for a change in the law, or one that
> has no basis in fact.[1] The term has acquired a broader
> rhetorical definition in political debates about tort reform,
> where it is sometimes used by reform advocates to describe
> successful tort lawsuits that critics believe are without merit,
> or award high damages relative to actual damages.
>
> Tort reform advocates argue that the present tort system is too
> expensive, that meritless lawsuits clog up the courts, that per
> capita tort costs vary significantly from state to state, and that
> trial attorneys customarily receive an unusually large percentage
> of the punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs in tort cases.
> High-profile tort cases are often portrayed by the media as the
> legal system's version of a lottery, where trial lawyers actively
> seek the magic combination of plaintiff, defendant, judge, and
> jury.
>
> Advocates of tort reform also complain of unconstitutional
> regulation caused by litigation. Proponents further argue that
> litigation is used to circumvent the legislative process by
> achieving regulation that Congress is unwilling or unable to pass.
> A few of the changes frequently advocated include limits on
> punitive damages, limits on non-economic damages, limiting the
> collateral source doctrine, use of court-appointed expert
> witnesses, elimination of elections for judges, reducing appeal
> bond requirements for defendants faced with bankruptcy, "venue
> reform", which limits the jurisdictions within which one can file
> a lawsuit, limits on contingency fees, the adoption of the English
> Rule of "loser pays" (the defeated party must pay both the
> plaintiff's and the defendant's expenses), and requiring that
> class action lawsuits with nationwide plaintiffs be tried in
> federal courts, eliminating awards for pre-judgment interest.
>
>
> It's clear from this advertisement, that something needs to be done:
>
> http://www.atra.org/
> ATRA Critical of Hellhole Lawyer's 'Heart Attack' Ad
> Palm Beach, Florida-based personal injury lawyer Craig Goldenfarb
> has taken trolling for new clients to an arresting new low -
> cardiac arrest, that is. His advertisement, appearing on some taxi
> cabs, suggests that people who have heart attacks in public places
> should sue others for liability.
>
> Neither Goldenfarb's ad nor Web site offers any information about
> the personal choices that can lead to heart attacks, such as
> eating or drinking or smoking too much and not getting enough
> exercise. Apparently he'd rather we blame someone else for our
> problems, and that mindset helps make Palm Beach and Miami-Dade
> counties the collective judicial hellhole they are (see ATRA's
> Judicial Hellholes® 2006 report which cited South Florida among
> the nation's worst, most unfair jurisdictions in which to be
> sued).
>
> In a news release, ATRA director of communications Darren
> McKinney said he found the ad's "opportunistic, ambulance-chasing
> mentality" to be "truly sickening" and rhetorically asked: "So who
> can I sue?" He added that "ATRA intends to keep reminding
> consumers, taxpayers and voters in judicial hellholes that they
> ultimately bear the costs for the lawsuit abuse that the Craig
> Goldenfarbs of the world foment."
>
>
>
> What has happened to the US? While it's a different issue, usury is
> apparently no longer illegal either. I can recall when charging 10%
> interest was considered usury and punishable under the law. Today
> credit card companies routinely charge 25% interest. If that's not
> unconscionable or exorbitant, what is?
>
> I would characterize it as laissez-(un)faire capitalism.
>
>


--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Welcome to the future of General Aviation in the United States.
> Before the lawyers are through, there won't be a company willing to
> invest in a product anywhere in the United States....and this isn't just
> in aviation either.
>
> Health care, as well as other business with deep pockets has been, and
> will be targeted until it collapses under the weight of litigation
> and/or fear of litigation.
> When you have a gullible and greedy public being steered and used by
> lawyers willing to literally destroy businesses, lives, and fortunes in
> order to divert these assets into their own coffers, this is what you
> will get.
> DH

Yes, when they went after cigarettes, we did nothing as we thought
cigarettes were bad.

When they went after asbestos we did nothing as we thought asbestos was bad.

Now they are coming after us...

And now they are rich from their wins against tobacco and asbestos and
will keep on going from target to target.


Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Welcome to the future of General Aviation in the United States.
>> Before the lawyers are through, there won't be a company willing to
>> invest in a product anywhere in the United States....and this isn't
>> just in aviation either.
>>
>> Health care, as well as other business with deep pockets has been, and
>> will be targeted until it collapses under the weight of litigation
>> and/or fear of litigation.
>> When you have a gullible and greedy public being steered and used by
>> lawyers willing to literally destroy businesses, lives, and fortunes
>> in order to divert these assets into their own coffers, this is what
>> you will get.
>> DH
>
> Yes, when they went after cigarettes, we did nothing as we thought
> cigarettes were bad.
>
> When they went after asbestos we did nothing as we thought asbestos was
> bad.
>
> Now they are coming after us...
>
> And now they are rich from their wins against tobacco and asbestos and
> will keep on going from target to target.
>
>
> Matt


There's a huge push ad running on the national airwaves right now by a
legal firm stating that the credit card companies don't want you to know
that you can pay off what you owe them with 1/10 of what is due. They
encourage you not to declare bankruptcy but rather to engage them to
arrange a "settlement" with the credit card company.
This firm is literally encouraging people to defraud the credit card
companies.
Naturally the result of this will be the firm taking a healthy fee from
those using their "services" to screw the credit card company, and the
credit card company in turn, to offset their losses and legal fees, will
immediately pass this cost on to other users of their cards; those who
actually pay their just bills.
Amazing! You just have to LOVE what lawyers are doing to the country.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Welcome to the future of General Aviation in the United States.
>>> Before the lawyers are through, there won't be a company willing to
>>> invest in a product anywhere in the United States....and this isn't
>>> just in aviation either.
>>>
>>> Health care, as well as other business with deep pockets has been,
>>> and will be targeted until it collapses under the weight of
>>> litigation and/or fear of litigation.
>>> When you have a gullible and greedy public being steered and used by
>>> lawyers willing to literally destroy businesses, lives, and fortunes
>>> in order to divert these assets into their own coffers, this is what
>>> you will get.
>>> DH
>>
>> Yes, when they went after cigarettes, we did nothing as we thought
>> cigarettes were bad.
>>
>> When they went after asbestos we did nothing as we thought asbestos
>> was bad.
>>
>> Now they are coming after us...
>>
>> And now they are rich from their wins against tobacco and asbestos and
>> will keep on going from target to target.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> There's a huge push ad running on the national airwaves right now by a
> legal firm stating that the credit card companies don't want you to know
> that you can pay off what you owe them with 1/10 of what is due. They
> encourage you not to declare bankruptcy but rather to engage them to
> arrange a "settlement" with the credit card company.
> This firm is literally encouraging people to defraud the credit card
> companies.
> Naturally the result of this will be the firm taking a healthy fee from
> those using their "services" to screw the credit card company, and the
> credit card company in turn, to offset their losses and legal fees, will
> immediately pass this cost on to other users of their cards; those who
> actually pay their just bills.
> Amazing! You just have to LOVE what lawyers are doing to the country.

Yes, and the more they make the more they will come up with these
schemes. I don't think it will end until the lawyers have all of the
money and then have to sue each other. :-)

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> Welcome to the future of General Aviation in the United States.
>>>> Before the lawyers are through, there won't be a company willing to
>>>> invest in a product anywhere in the United States....and this isn't
>>>> just in aviation either.
>>>>
>>>> Health care, as well as other business with deep pockets has been,
>>>> and will be targeted until it collapses under the weight of
>>>> litigation and/or fear of litigation.
>>>> When you have a gullible and greedy public being steered and used
>>>> by lawyers willing to literally destroy businesses, lives, and
>>>> fortunes in order to divert these assets into their own coffers,
>>>> this is what you will get.
>>>> DH
>>>
>>> Yes, when they went after cigarettes, we did nothing as we thought
>>> cigarettes were bad.
>>>
>>> When they went after asbestos we did nothing as we thought asbestos
>>> was bad.
>>>
>>> Now they are coming after us...
>>>
>>> And now they are rich from their wins against tobacco and asbestos
>>> and will keep on going from target to target.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>> There's a huge push ad running on the national airwaves right now by a
>> legal firm stating that the credit card companies don't want you to
>> know that you can pay off what you owe them with 1/10 of what is due.
>> They encourage you not to declare bankruptcy but rather to engage them
>> to arrange a "settlement" with the credit card company.
>> This firm is literally encouraging people to defraud the credit card
>> companies.
>> Naturally the result of this will be the firm taking a healthy fee
>> from those using their "services" to screw the credit card company,
>> and the credit card company in turn, to offset their losses and legal
>> fees, will immediately pass this cost on to other users of their
>> cards; those who actually pay their just bills.
>> Amazing! You just have to LOVE what lawyers are doing to the country.
>
> Yes, and the more they make the more they will come up with these
> schemes. I don't think it will end until the lawyers have all of the
> money and then have to sue each other. :-)
>
> Matt

They're already doing that. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Welcome to the future of General Aviation in the United States.
>>>>> Before the lawyers are through, there won't be a company willing to
>>>>> invest in a product anywhere in the United States....and this isn't
>>>>> just in aviation either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Health care, as well as other business with deep pockets has been,
>>>>> and will be targeted until it collapses under the weight of
>>>>> litigation and/or fear of litigation.
>>>>> When you have a gullible and greedy public being steered and used
>>>>> by lawyers willing to literally destroy businesses, lives, and
>>>>> fortunes in order to divert these assets into their own coffers,
>>>>> this is what you will get.
>>>>> DH
>>>>
>>>> Yes, when they went after cigarettes, we did nothing as we thought
>>>> cigarettes were bad.
>>>>
>>>> When they went after asbestos we did nothing as we thought asbestos
>>>> was bad.
>>>>
>>>> Now they are coming after us...
>>>>
>>>> And now they are rich from their wins against tobacco and asbestos
>>>> and will keep on going from target to target.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a huge push ad running on the national airwaves right now by
>>> a legal firm stating that the credit card companies don't want you to
>>> know that you can pay off what you owe them with 1/10 of what is due.
>>> They encourage you not to declare bankruptcy but rather to engage
>>> them to arrange a "settlement" with the credit card company.
>>> This firm is literally encouraging people to defraud the credit card
>>> companies.
>>> Naturally the result of this will be the firm taking a healthy fee
>>> from those using their "services" to screw the credit card company,
>>> and the credit card company in turn, to offset their losses and legal
>>> fees, will immediately pass this cost on to other users of their
>>> cards; those who actually pay their just bills.
>>> Amazing! You just have to LOVE what lawyers are doing to the country.
>>
>> Yes, and the more they make the more they will come up with these
>> schemes. I don't think it will end until the lawyers have all of the
>> money and then have to sue each other. :-)
>>
>> Matt
>
> They're already doing that. :-)
>

But not nearly enough!!

Matt

[Richard]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>> Yes, and the more they make the more they will come up with these
>> schemes. I don't think it will end until the lawyers have all of the
>> money and then have to sue each other. :-)
>>
>> Matt
>
> They're already doing that. :-)
>
Here's how to deal with lawyers.

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/11/05/afx4298368.html

"Pakistani police Monday baton-charged and arrested more than 100 lawyers at
protests in at least two cities against a state of emergency imposed by
President Pervez Musharraf, witnesses said."

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Richard wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Yes, and the more they make the more they will come up with these
>>> schemes. I don't think it will end until the lawyers have all of the
>>> money and then have to sue each other. :-)
>>>
>>> Matt
>> They're already doing that. :-)
>>
> Here's how to deal with lawyers.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/11/05/afx4298368.html
>
> "Pakistani police Monday baton-charged and arrested more than 100 lawyers at
> protests in at least two cities against a state of emergency imposed by
> President Pervez Musharraf, witnesses said."
>
>
Unfortunately, after years of neglect, apathy, and unbridled greed on
the part of the American public, the control lawyers now enjoy over
every facet of American life, business, and government, is complete.
We are now simply waiting for the inevitable downfall of such a system.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Richard wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> Yes, and the more they make the more they will come up with these
>>>> schemes. I don't think it will end until the lawyers have all of the
>>>> money and then have to sue each other. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>> They're already doing that. :-)
>>>
>> Here's how to deal with lawyers.
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/11/05/afx4298368.html
>>
>> "Pakistani police Monday baton-charged and arrested more than 100 lawyers
>> at protests in at least two cities against a state of emergency imposed
>> by President Pervez Musharraf, witnesses said."
> Unfortunately, after years of neglect, apathy, and unbridled greed on the
> part of the American public, the control lawyers now enjoy over every
> facet of American life, business, and government, is complete.
> We are now simply waiting for the inevitable downfall of such a system.
>
And the lawyers will sue everyone for causing said downfall.

[LWG]

I don't want to get in the way of a really good rant, but can we put a
little finer edge on this?

For all the idiotic decisions out there, whether against Cessna, Lycoming,
Parker-Hannefin or even McDonald's, there was some guy on the other side
arguing his heart out saying "My client did nothing wrong, and its product
met all of the applicable legal standards." He was left sputtering and
every bit as outraged as the writers in this thread when the jury came back
awarding millions against his client.

In cases that are settled, the companies pay because they have a damned good
idea of what a jury is going to do if it watches the grieving widow or
listens to the burn victim describe his treatment, regardless of how
well-made or well-engineered their products were.

There are *some* lawyers who manipulate gullible and sympathetic juries to
the detriment of society, especially general aviation. The system,
including the trial process, legislatures (i.e. lawyers who write laws) and
the judiciary (i.e. former lawyers who think they are little legislatures)
has become malignant, destroying the body that gave it life. But like a
malignancy, there is the rest of the body -- lots of decent, hard-working,
intelligent and right-minded people who are trying like hell to stop the
spread of the disease.

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Richard wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> Yes, and the more they make the more they will come up with these
>>>>> schemes. I don't think it will end until the lawyers have all of the
>>>>> money and then have to sue each other. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>> They're already doing that. :-)
>>>>
>>> Here's how to deal with lawyers.
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/11/05/afx4298368.html
>>>
>>> "Pakistani police Monday baton-charged and arrested more than 100
>>> lawyers at protests in at least two cities against a state of emergency
>>> imposed by President Pervez Musharraf, witnesses said."
>> Unfortunately, after years of neglect, apathy, and unbridled greed on the
>> part of the American public, the control lawyers now enjoy over every
>> facet of American life, business, and government, is complete.
>> We are now simply waiting for the inevitable downfall of such a system.
>>
> And the lawyers will sue everyone for causing said downfall.
>

[Marty Shapiro]

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> I don't want to get in the way of a really good rant, but can we put a
> little finer edge on this?
>
> For all the idiotic decisions out there, whether against Cessna,
> Lycoming, Parker-Hannefin or even McDonald's, there was some guy on
> the other side arguing his heart out saying "My client did nothing
> wrong, and its product met all of the applicable legal standards." He
> was left sputtering and every bit as outraged as the writers in this
> thread when the jury came back awarding millions against his client.
>
> In cases that are settled, the companies pay because they have a
> damned good idea of what a jury is going to do if it watches the
> grieving widow or listens to the burn victim describe his treatment,
> regardless of how well-made or well-engineered their products were.
>
> There are *some* lawyers who manipulate gullible and sympathetic
> juries to the detriment of society, especially general aviation. The
> system, including the trial process, legislatures (i.e. lawyers who
> write laws) and the judiciary (i.e. former lawyers who think they are
> little legislatures) has become malignant, destroying the body that
> gave it life. But like a malignancy, there is the rest of the body --
> lots of decent, hard-working, intelligent and right-minded people who
> are trying like hell to stop the spread of the disease.
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...

You left out the attitude of some jurors who say "It's only the
insurance companies money." That adds to the sympathy the jury already
feels toward a badly injured victim.

Many years ago I was on a jury where an oversized passenger refused to
wear a seatbelt on a commuter flight. At first the Captain told her to
leave the aircraft and called the police to remove her. When the police
arrived, she agreed to wear the seatbelt and promised to obey the Captain's
instructions. They let her stay. Other passengers testified that during
the take off roll, she removed the seat belt and bragged to them that the
Captain didn't know what he was talking about, seat belts weren't
necessary. Near their destination, the Captain informed all passengers
that there was expected moderate to severs turbulence and asked everyone to
ensure their seatbelts were tightly fastened. The other passengers
testified that they pleaded with this passenger to put on the seatbelt, but
she refused. The aircraft hit severe turbulence. She was thrown into the
air and crashed to the floor of the aircraft, breaking two ribs, an arm, a
leg, and also had a skull fracture. Of course she sued the airline. The
forelady of the jury wanted to give her much more than the suit was for
becase "It's only an insurance companies money." I don't know what
eventually happened, as it ended in a hung jury. One other juror and
myself refused to give her a penny. We felt sorry for her for the injuries
she had suffered and the medical bills she incurred, but she did it to
herself.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:37:32 +0000, Marty Shapiro wrote:

> You left out the attitude of some jurors who say "It's only the
> insurance companies money." That adds to the sympathy the jury already
> feels toward a badly injured victim.

I agree. I'm far more inclined to blame juries than lawyers. Lawyers
are just doing their job of advocating for their client. It's not their
fault that juries have twisted this around so badly.

Yes, the advocates argue for ridiculous awards. But that's what you'd
expect an advocate to do: request the most possible for the client. The
juries are supposed to impose sanity on the system.

And at that they've failed miserably.

Dudley argued earlier in this thread that this wasn't just an aviation
problem. That's true. But politicians score points by [claiming to be]
trying to fix things like health care costs. We in aviation don't make
as juicy a political demographic.

- Andrew

[Big John]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:32:24 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:37:32 +0000, Marty Shapiro wrote:
>
>> You left out the attitude of some jurors who say "It's only the
>> insurance companies money." That adds to the sympathy the jury already
>> feels toward a badly injured victim.
>
>I agree. I'm far more inclined to blame juries than lawyers. Lawyers
>are just doing their job of advocating for their client. It's not their
>fault that juries have twisted this around so badly.
>
>Yes, the advocates argue for ridiculous awards. But that's what you'd
>expect an advocate to do: request the most possible for the client. The
>juries are supposed to impose sanity on the system.
>
>And at that they've failed miserably.
>
>Dudley argued earlier in this thread that this wasn't just an aviation
>problem. That's true. But politicians score points by [claiming to be]
>trying to fix things like health care costs. We in aviation don't make
>as juicy a political demographic.
>
> - Andrew


I'll tag this on the end of this thread.

What I would llike to see is have the rules (laws) changed and if
somone sues and looses, they would have to pay the one sued the amount
sued for and the lawyer would have to match that amount.

This might help get some sanity back in the system???

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:


>
> I'll tag this on the end of this thread.
>
> What I would llike to see is have the rules (laws) changed and if
> somone sues and looses, they would have to pay the one sued the amount
> sued for and the lawyer would have to match that amount.
>
> This might help get some sanity back in the system???

Well, I got sued and won and the other ******* had to pay my lawyer and it
was a LOT of money. IIRC he was suing me for about three grand and he won,
then I appealed, he lost and had to pay lawyers fees on my side alone of
over eight grand and probably almost as much ot his guy.


God that was great.


Bertie

[Marty Shapiro]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:32:24 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:37:32 +0000, Marty Shapiro wrote:
>>
>>> You left out the attitude of some jurors who say "It's only the
>>> insurance companies money." That adds to the sympathy the jury already
>>> feels toward a badly injured victim.
>>
>>I agree. I'm far more inclined to blame juries than lawyers. Lawyers
>>are just doing their job of advocating for their client. It's not their
>>fault that juries have twisted this around so badly.
>>
>>Yes, the advocates argue for ridiculous awards. But that's what you'd
>>expect an advocate to do: request the most possible for the client. The
>>juries are supposed to impose sanity on the system.
>>
>>And at that they've failed miserably.
>>
>>Dudley argued earlier in this thread that this wasn't just an aviation
>>problem. That's true. But politicians score points by [claiming to be]
>>trying to fix things like health care costs. We in aviation don't make
>>as juicy a political demographic.
>>
>> - Andrew
>
>
> I'll tag this on the end of this thread.
>
> What I would llike to see is have the rules (laws) changed and if
> somone sues and looses, they would have to pay the one sued the amount
> sued for and the lawyer would have to match that amount.
>
> This might help get some sanity back in the system???
>
> Big John

It would if we had juries that decided on facts and the law not
emotion and "it's only an insurance companies money". As long as juries
decide cases on that basis, your better off at the crap tables. At least
there you know what your odds really are.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Matt Whiting]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Big John > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:32:24 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:37:32 +0000, Marty Shapiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> You left out the attitude of some jurors who say "It's only the
>>>> insurance companies money." That adds to the sympathy the jury already
>>>> feels toward a badly injured victim.
>>> I agree. I'm far more inclined to blame juries than lawyers. Lawyers
>>> are just doing their job of advocating for their client. It's not their
>>> fault that juries have twisted this around so badly.
>>>
>>> Yes, the advocates argue for ridiculous awards. But that's what you'd
>>> expect an advocate to do: request the most possible for the client. The
>>> juries are supposed to impose sanity on the system.
>>>
>>> And at that they've failed miserably.
>>>
>>> Dudley argued earlier in this thread that this wasn't just an aviation
>>> problem. That's true. But politicians score points by [claiming to be]
>>> trying to fix things like health care costs. We in aviation don't make
>>> as juicy a political demographic.
>>>
>>> - Andrew
>>
>> I'll tag this on the end of this thread.
>>
>> What I would llike to see is have the rules (laws) changed and if
>> somone sues and looses, they would have to pay the one sued the amount
>> sued for and the lawyer would have to match that amount.
>>
>> This might help get some sanity back in the system???
>>
>> Big John
>
> It would if we had juries that decided on facts and the law not
> emotion and "it's only an insurance companies money". As long as juries
> decide cases on that basis, your better off at the crap tables. At least
> there you know what your odds really are.
>

Yes, when your education system falls apart and your populace is no long
smart enough to understand basic economics, this is what happens. Throw
in a "justice" system that really is about money rather than justice and
the cycle is complete.

Matt

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Gideon > posted:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:37:32 +0000, Marty Shapiro wrote:
>
>> You left out the attitude of some jurors who say "It's only the
>> insurance companies money." That adds to the sympathy the jury
>> already feels toward a badly injured victim.
>
> I agree. I'm far more inclined to blame juries than lawyers. Lawyers
> are just doing their job of advocating for their client. It's not
> their fault that juries have twisted this around so badly.
>
What is the impact of those that dodge jury duty?

What is the impact of the jury selection process, where lawyers "weed out"
the remaining jurors capable of understanding their twisted logic?

The whole system needs to be revamped if you want it to work as originally
intended.

The Pakistani's had a good thing going the other day; it gave me a big
chuckle to watch the lawyers being dragged off to jail. I'm just not sure
they could keep that up for long enough to have a positive impact on
society. Of course, we're not quite up to that level of consciousness yet.
;-)

Neil

[[email protected]]

You can do more. It is important that you contact your congressman
today - www.AeroBlue.Org/TortReform

Describe the damage that these suits have on our industry. This
action will affect 152,000 $15B worth of aircraft.

We need to extend the General Aviation Revitalization Act to protect
certified manufacturers, parts and service.

There are increasing numbers of mechanics who will not, can not repair
aircraft over 18 years old, because this liability has shifted to the
mechanic and the part.


AeroBlue.Org - The Grassroots Aviation Network