Family awarded $3.5 million in Citation crash

The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
the suits to go forward.

From AOPA
A February 2005 crash has resulted in a $3.5 million out-of-court settlement
for the family of a Circuit City buyer who was a passenger on the flight to
Pueblo Memorial Airport, Colorado. All eight aboard the aircraft were
killed. The payment will be made by Circuit City and Martinair, the
Richmond, Virginia-based manager of the aircraft. The NTSB has not
determined a cause for the accident, but pilots mentioned icing shortly
before the crash while on an approach to Runway 26R in IMC conditions.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
the suits to go forward.

From AOPA
A February 2005 crash has resulted in a $3.5 million out-of-court settlement
for the family of a Circuit City buyer who was a passenger on the flight to
Pueblo Memorial Airport, Colorado. All eight aboard the aircraft were
killed. The payment will be made by Circuit City and Martinair, the
Richmond, Virginia-based manager of the aircraft. The NTSB has not
determined a cause for the accident, but pilots mentioned icing shortly
before the crash while on an approach to Runway 26R in IMC conditions.

Lawyers would always rather get their cut without actually having to go
to court and do some work.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

On 13 Dec 2006 09:44:35 -0800, "Gene Seibel" wrote
in . com:

Lawyers would always rather get their cut without actually having to go
to court and do some work.

Implicit in that point of view is the notion that the family's
attorney was working on a percentage basis.

Other motivations for an early settlement may be the fact that the
family will receive their payment sooner, and there is less likelihood
of the family learning of the amounts of settlements in similar cases.
So the result may be that Circuit City's costs are reduced.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:39:33 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in :

The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
the suits to go forward.

Is there any evidence that the family had filed suit?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:39:33 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in :

The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before
allowing
the suits to go forward.

Is there any evidence that the family had filed suit?


I'll be damned your right...

"Harmon's estate did not sue the companies. The settlement was reached out
of court before any documents were ever filed. The agreement reached last
month releases the companies from any further claims in Harmon's death."

....but some of the others involved have.

"The families of two other Circuit City employees from Virginia killed in
the crash, David Joseph Coffman and Aaron Iskowitz, have filed lawsuits that
are pending. The lawsuits allege the Cessna's wing de-icing and ice
detecting mechanisms were defective."

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:39:33 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before
allowing the suits to go forward.

I recall reading that NTSB analysis could not be cited in a court case. I
don't know if this precludes the use of the NTSB staffers as expert
witnesses.

But would appear that the fact that the NTSB hadn't yet reached a
conclusion would have no bearing on the legal case if its conclusion
couldn't be cited.

The idea is weird, though, considering that part of the NTSB's mandate is
to determine an accident's cause.

- Andrew

I recall reading that NTSB analysis could not be cited in a court case.[...]
The idea is weird, though, considering that part of the NTSB's mandate is
to determine an accident's cause.

It removes a source of pressure on the NTSB to alter their findings.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:19:22 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

It removes a source of pressure on the NTSB to alter their findings.

Except when the NTSB is investigating military and governmental
accidents. :-(

Jose wrote:
I recall reading that NTSB analysis could not be cited in a court
case.[...]
The idea is weird, though, considering that part of the NTSB's mandate is
to determine an accident's cause.

It removes a source of pressure on the NTSB to alter their findings.


Presumably the gov't is immune to such influence. The major reason
that the NTSB is immune to being used in court is so that people
who provide support to the investigation know they aren't jeopardizing
pecuniary interests by doing so.

Ron Natalie schrieb:

Presumably the gov't is immune to such influence. The major reason
that the NTSB is immune to being used in court is so that people
who provide support to the investigation know they aren't jeopardizing
pecuniary interests by doing so.

It's more than that. If it comes to a criminal investigation, then the
accused has certain rights. (A lawyer's assistance, the right to say
nothing, etc., different rights in different countries.) Now if someone
who expects to be blamed to have made a mistake in the accident and
therefore has to expect to be accused in court assists the NTSB to
investigate the case, and then later these results are used in court,
this would jeopardize his rights in court. Or, vice versa, if he wanted
to keep his rights, then he had to refuse to help the NTSB, jeopardizing
their effort to enhance safety.

Stefan