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.