Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
F. Baum wrote:
On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;

To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
(But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
interesting.
FB
--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's true the issue is quite complex and as such assigning it a single
failure statement might be excessive.
I spent considerable time involved with flight safety issues including
active accident investigation. I've been exposed to a fairly wide
spectrum of these issues myself.
This being said, I believe I understand your point clearly and accept
some compromise on basic premise.
I am still left with the basic study of the litigation equation that
states several initiation assumptions;

The plaintiff can seek a law suit but no suit can occur without a lawyer.
This scenario can be either ethical or unethical, but if unethical, the
responsibility lies with the lawyer as by simple deduction, the
unethical suit can and should be refused by the lawyer regardless of the
insistence or incentive of the prospective client.

And this just covers the scenario where the plaintiff makes the initial
contact.

Now considering the second alternative; that being the lawyer actively
seeking a plaintiff and we have an unethical scenario by definition.
Lawyers seeking litigation are initiating or attempting to initiate an
action that requires a plaintiff. In seeking that plaintiff, I see a
clear violation of ethical standard.

Now take the worst case scenario, which by mere chance I am witnessing
tonight as we speak.
I just finished listening to a radio commercial where an attorney is
advertising for people to "become familiar" with a fact that "the credit
card companies don't want you to know"; that fact being that you can pay
the credit card company much LESS than you actually owe them with no
penalty. This attorney is actively seeking clients to defraud a credit
card company while making a fee for the service.
This type of lawyer advertising should be illegal but is allowed under
laws passed by the same lawyers doing the solicitation.
This behavior is well beyond the pail and is wide spread in the legal
community.
To me at least, it is THIS type of activity by the legal profession that
has taken the justice out of the system and replaced it with nothing
more or less than a pure legally sponsored money making machine.

--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Im not denying that you have plenty of ambulence chasers out there. It
is far too simplistic to judge an entire profesion on a few shysters.
My only point was that if you get beyond the hype and read a few legal
briefs or court procedings, it gets kinda interesting. Accident
investigation and a liability trial are two separate things.

On Dec 2, 9:17 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

No. I was in fact attending a luncheon at the Naval Test Pilot School.
The comment came from the a professional associate of mine; a graduate
of a major university law school.
We did however show up at a bar later on in the day for some "attitude
adjustment."

--
Dudley Henriques

You didnt answer my question .
Of course I am sure the guy was a very good lawyer and there is some
truth to what he says. But there are many influences such as juries,
statutes, and precidents that can affect the outcome of a case.

F. Baum wrote:
On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
F. Baum wrote:
On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;
To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.
I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
(But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
interesting.
FB
--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's true the issue is quite complex and as such assigning it a single
failure statement might be excessive.
I spent considerable time involved with flight safety issues including
active accident investigation. I've been exposed to a fairly wide
spectrum of these issues myself.
This being said, I believe I understand your point clearly and accept
some compromise on basic premise.
I am still left with the basic study of the litigation equation that
states several initiation assumptions;

The plaintiff can seek a law suit but no suit can occur without a lawyer.
This scenario can be either ethical or unethical, but if unethical, the
responsibility lies with the lawyer as by simple deduction, the
unethical suit can and should be refused by the lawyer regardless of the
insistence or incentive of the prospective client.

And this just covers the scenario where the plaintiff makes the initial
contact.

Now considering the second alternative; that being the lawyer actively
seeking a plaintiff and we have an unethical scenario by definition.
Lawyers seeking litigation are initiating or attempting to initiate an
action that requires a plaintiff. In seeking that plaintiff, I see a
clear violation of ethical standard.

Now take the worst case scenario, which by mere chance I am witnessing
tonight as we speak.
I just finished listening to a radio commercial where an attorney is
advertising for people to "become familiar" with a fact that "the credit
card companies don't want you to know"; that fact being that you can pay
the credit card company much LESS than you actually owe them with no
penalty. This attorney is actively seeking clients to defraud a credit
card company while making a fee for the service.
This type of lawyer advertising should be illegal but is allowed under
laws passed by the same lawyers doing the solicitation.
This behavior is well beyond the pail and is wide spread in the legal
community.
To me at least, it is THIS type of activity by the legal profession that
has taken the justice out of the system and replaced it with nothing
more or less than a pure legally sponsored money making machine.

--
Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Im not denying that you have plenty of ambulence chasers out there. It
is far too simplistic to judge an entire profesion on a few shysters.
My only point was that if you get beyond the hype and read a few legal
briefs or court procedings, it gets kinda interesting. Accident
investigation and a liability trial are two separate things.

I think what it boils down to is that opinions about professions are
formed by people operating within the structure of those professions.
My opinion has been formed over many years of exposure and will remain
unchanged. I do however, respect the fact that there will always be
those with perfectly viable opinions of their own.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
Half the kids don't speak English. That makes it tuff on everyone. I think
that's the biggest problem.

And 3/4ths of them are native born.

F. Baum wrote:
On Dec 2, 9:17 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
No. I was in fact attending a luncheon at the Naval Test Pilot School.
The comment came from the a professional associate of mine; a graduate
of a major university law school.
We did however show up at a bar later on in the day for some "attitude
adjustment."

--
Dudley Henriques

You didnt answer my question .
Of course I am sure the guy was a very good lawyer and there is some
truth to what he says. But there are many influences such as juries,
statutes, and precidents that can affect the outcome of a case.

Absolutely; all of these factors are directly influenced by lawyers. In
fact, none of them exist without lawyers.

I have no issue at all with you having an opposing opinion. Past a
certain point of disagreement I just don't feel the need to justify my
position to you or anyone else and I'm making no attempt at all to have
you justify your argument to me.
These issues are totally opinion based. I simply have an opinion. I
don't feel it necessary to justify or argue the reason I have this opinion.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques writes:
To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

Another take: in Canada, this problem of frivolous lawsuits does not
exist to anywhere near the degree that it exists in the US.

Why? In Canada if you want to file a lawsuit, you have to hire a
lawyer. And pay them. They must be paid the same amount, whether
they win or they lose. (I think you can sue for legal fees -- but if
you lose that lawsuit, you now have to pay your lawyer for that too.)
If you can't afford a lawyer, and you have been wronged, you can apply
for legal aid -- and the most worthy of those applicants will get a
free lawyer.

The net result: plaintiffs won't sue unless they stand a good chance
of winning. Lawyers don't go sniffing for business on longshot cases.
Insurance rates are much lower. The courts are less busy. The
downside of this system: if you are poor and are wronged, it is
somewhat harder to get compensated. But for some reason it all seems
to work out just fine...

So perhaps the problem in the US is neither the plaintiffs or the
lawyers, but the system itself -- it rewards bad behaviour, and as
long as it does this then the unethical plaintiffs and lawyers will
continue to be attracted to these rewards.

Chris

"Al" wrote Time out, sports fans.

Don't blame the schools.

Where are the parents????
Want to see the biggest problem in America's education system? Look in
the mirror.

Get involved with your kids. Get involved with your schools. Be part of
the solution. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and be a Monday morning
quarterback.

-end rant-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks Al

Truer words never spoken. You said it much more eloquently than I can. I
_am_ personally involved, and see all that you mentioned every day, and
more. It makes me angry, nearly every day. Sometimes I can't help but to
get a little over-revved.

Just a couple more things I'll mention that you didn't.

Want to see racism? Look at the parents. I am floored by some of the
attitudes I see, and then I meet the parents. The nut doesn't fall far from
the tree.

I would never dream of that type of behavior, or talk. I really didn't know
there were really people still like that, until I started teaching.

Another one.

How about destruction of other people's property? Kids try to break
something, just to see if they can "tear it up." Even very sturdy things
that are built to take a good bit of abuse, like professional grade power
tools, costing hundreds of dollars. (I teach construction, or carpentry;
what ever you want to call it) They do usually figure out a way to break
them, after a while.

They know it is wrong, because they are sneaky and do it while you are not
looking. Then they laugh about it, thinking it is hilarious. That is how I
usually know they have done something destructive, and start investigating
until I figure out what they were up to. How did this get started? Ever
see "Jackass TV?" The title says it all; kids acting like jackasses.
There are many shows on like that now. Tapes are made of stuff getting
broken, just for fun.

It is not limited to property, but to other people, also. Look on U-tube.

I was looking at something on U-tube the other day, and drift got me to
where kids were doing stuff to hurt other kids, just for fun. I saw one,
where a kid chased one of his buddies through a door that you could not see
through, and someone was on the other side of the door waiting for him.
They had removed the back of a swivel type desk chair, you know - a hard
back with padding on it for the small of your back and up a little, with a
steel flat bar to connect it to the seat portion. The kid swung that at the
other persons FACE as hard as he could. It was so hard that it knocked the
other one backwards off his feet. A very bloody nose resulted, and I would
be VERY surprised if his nose was not broken. Funny stuff, huh?

I put much of the blame on TV shows and tapes like that for this type of
destructive and abusive behavior. They sit around thinking about ways to
top what they saw. Again, they usually succeed.

Where are the parents to teach values about respect for other people, and
respect for other people's property? Teachers can not teach all of that at
school; it has to happen at home. On the whole it is, but there are way too
many examples of kids that are not getting the values, somehow, and it is
obvious.

If someone did something like that at school and got caught, (probably
wouldn't - planning and lookouts would prevent that - this tape I mentioned
with the bloody nose looked like it might have been at school, by the way)
he would get a few days vacation. Oh, I meant suspension. Same thing, to
the kid.

Where is the punishment that would mean something, like a severely bruised
ass. I guarantee, when I was a kid, that would have happened, and I would
have gotten double when I got home. That was my parent's policy. Guess
what? I never tested that policy.

Again, I would never have dreamed of doing of things like that. Values
taught at home, not at school. Such behaviors are now an almost daily
occurrence.

There is more, but you did get what you mentioned, dead on. Exactly right.

Again, thanks.

People, listen to him, not to me, if you wish. He said it like it is.
--
Jim in NC

So what is your beef, then?


With people who forget that education is a partnership bewteen a
school and the parent.


And that is the fault of the schools how?

According to Matt B. it is because the parents that don't get involved are
products of the public schools, and the teachers are mostly stupid, because
they are products of the public schools.

I don't buy it. There are always exceptions, though.

Matt is constant, that is one fact. His story never changes away from a
very narrow stance.
--
Jim in NC

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Morgans wrote:


What does economic education have to do with leaning about a hopelessly
screwed up justice system have to do with the price of beans in China?

If you have to ask that question then you are one of the victims.

Educate me, then.

The question is what relevance economic education has to a broken justice
system.
--
Jim in NC

If you have to ask that question then you are one of the victims.

Or one of the causes.

Yeah, Matt. I confess. I'm a prime example of all the failings of public
education. All the problems rolled up into one ball.

I don't know how I can live with myself.

Not.
--
Jim in NC