Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

On Oct 8, 7:25*pm, Robert Moore wrote:
Mike Ash wrote

The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.

Nope!! Legally can't be done.....

NTSB Reports in Court.
NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in court. More accurately, facts
from the report may be used, but opinions may not. There are two reasons
for this policy. First, the integrity of the NTSB’s investigation may be
compromised if final reports were used as evidence. Second, the autonomy of
the jury must be maintained during civil proceedings.

If NTSB reports were used as evidence, some witnesses may be less
forthcoming with information during the investigative process and could
compromise the quality of the report by giving a more desired answer
instead of an accurate answer to questions being asked of them.
Additionally, the NTSB and the people involved with the report could be
summoned to court to testify, which would prevent them from performing
their normal investigative duties.

Bob Moore

NTSB findings are not admissable evidence because they are hearsay.
Every court must look at the same facts and make its own finding.
That view was presented by an NTSB investigator to a WINGS seminar
that used to be called the "Crash Course: 17 ways to fall out of the
sky."

In article ,
Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:40 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

In article ,
Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
proper result.

Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
negligence except in theory.

The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.

You're waaaaaaaay off the mark.

It's clear that you have no interest in a productive discussion, so into
the killfile with you.

(It's not useful to just say "you're wrong" all the time, you have to
actually back it up.)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Oct 10, 6:28*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
*Jeffrey Bloss wrote:



On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:40 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

In article ,
*Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
proper result.

Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
negligence except in theory.

The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.

You're waaaaaaaay off the mark.

It's clear that you have no interest in a productive discussion, so into
the killfile with you.

(It's not useful to just say "you're wrong" all the time, you have to
actually back it up.)

--
Why isn't the summary of the NTSB viewed in the same way as the
opinion of an expert witness -or is it?

Cheers

Flaps_50! wrote:
On Oct 10, 6:28Â*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
Â*Jeffrey Bloss wrote:



On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:40 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

In article ,
Â*Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
proper result.

Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
negligence except in theory.

The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.

You're waaaaaaaay off the mark.

It's clear that you have no interest in a productive discussion, so into
the killfile with you.

(It's not useful to just say "you're wrong" all the time, you have to
actually back it up.)

--
Why isn't the summary of the NTSB viewed in the same way as the
opinion of an expert witness -or is it?

Cheers

This has been answered many times; NTSB opinions are not admissible as
evidence in court.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Oct 8, 3:31*pm, Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), will alibrandi wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:07*pm, Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

Common sense?

lol
--

Meaning the plaintiffs dropped their ridiculous $60M product liability
suit when it was determined the aircraft wasn't at fault for flying
into a building.

Huh?

"A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
*widow and Stanger's estate...."
--


Aha. It seems I misunderstood the article. I guess the building owner
& residents settled, but Lidle's wife et al is still suing Cirrus for
product liability. (as if it were the plane's fault for flying into a
building) I hope the NTSB finding has some sway in that ridiculous
suit.