This should apply to airframe manufacturers too

Valid points, Mike... But the current system is strangling us...
As the probable defendant in a tort case, I have made the hard
calculations over the years... I no longer take the 'airport kids' for
a ride, or casual friends, etc... I can count on one hand the number
of non family who have been in my airplane in the past ten years...
The risk is just too extreme under our current system of liability...

Under Loser-Pays, your weeping widow will have to stop and do a hard
calculation just like me as to what will happen if she loses... The
attorney will have to do a hard calculation about malpractice if she
loses; and is going to turn away any case that is not based on
proveable fact... Riding the merry go round and grabbing for the
golden ring from a sobbing jury will decrease, which is the whole
point of loser-pays...

Your modification to have the attorney liable for a percentage is
excellent; and is likely to end contingency fee arrangements.. But
even lacking that, it won't take but a few malpractice suits against
the attorney by the disgruntled plaintiff who is now liable for the
defendants costs to modify the behavior of the plaintiff bar... The
old game of suing the maker of every part on the crashed airplane will
cease...

denny

Valid points, Mike... But the current system is strangling us...
As the probable defendant in a tort case, I have made the hard
calculations over the years... I no longer take the 'airport kids' for
a ride, or casual friends, etc... I can count on one hand the number
of non family who have been in my airplane in the past ten years...
The risk is just too extreme under our current system of liability...

Under Loser-Pays, your weeping widow will have to stop and do a hard
calculation just like me as to what will happen if she loses... The
attorney will have to do a hard calculation about malpractice if she
loses; and is going to turn away any case that is not based on
proveable fact... Riding the merry go round and grabbing for the
golden ring from a sobbing jury will decrease, which is the whole
point of loser-pays...

Your modification to have the attorney liable for a percentage is
excellent; and is likely to end contingency fee arrangements.. But
even lacking that, it won't take but a few malpractice suits against
the attorney by the disgruntled plaintiff who is now liable for the
defendants costs to modify the behavior of the plaintiff bar... The
old game of suing the maker of every part on the crashed airplane will
cease...



I detected some hints that you thought I was against a "loser pays"
system. I am quite in favor of it. Not sure if my original post was clear.

The challenge is that lawyers and their firms make a fortune on
lawsuits. Lawyers make up the bulk of Congress. The public will need to
raise quite a stink before anything changes. The ABA has been quite
protective of it's members gravy train (remember aircraft liability
reform?).

I still like "losing attorney pays a third". I want a direct connection
between taking on frivolous cases and pain at the cash box. The weeping
widow will likely not have the cash to take on her own attorney when she
loses the case. And malpractice is pretty hard to prove. Under "you
lose, you pay" there is little ambiguity.

Believe me, I know all too well what this current lottery system is doing:

* My family continues to goad me into flight instructing. I explain that
it is a young person's game. When they ask why, I point out that a 20
year old has few assets to sue for when something goes wrong during the
flight (whether it is the instructor's fault or not). A 52 year old has
plenty to lose. I don't want to be that 52 year old. Provide me with a
bullet proof liability shield and I will consider it. Legally, there
ain't no such thing. So, the thinning ranks of instructors stays thin.

* We put up with 45 year old crap engineering because nobody in their
right mind will try to improve or get into aviation manufacturing.

* We put up with ridiculous prices because of liability insurance and
the complete lack of competition.

* Flight schools and airports are closing DAILY and a big part of the
problem is the cost of insurance.

* The idiots in the media crank up the public by portraying every aspect
of flying in a negative light. This just fans the flames in the courtroom.

I say, let's try "loser pays" for 15 years and see how things go. Cannot
handle that, how about a "split system" where you either pay for the
current liability nonsense or you don't. You buy parts "with" or
"without" coverage. You step into an airplane "with" or "without" the
right ot sue. You take flight instruction "with" or "without". You get
the idea. And, you pay the likely huge cost differential for the coverage.

I have no idea how to handle this administratively, but I always
wondered what would happen.

Be Careful out There,
Mike