Comair Accident pilot sues...

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.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it
belongs.

If only they would do that.



--

On Aug 30, 9:25 am, Jonathan Goodish wrote:
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.

While I am also convinced the flight crew was primarily at fault, I
can't agree that the lighting company/contractor had "absolutely ZERO
honest liability" in this situation. If you read the article, you
would know that:

On Aug. 25, 2006, the airport issued a notice to
pilots that "numerous lights" on the main runway
were out of service. That night, at 1:40 a.m. Aug.
26, Polehinke landed at Lexington on a flight from
New York. The captain of that flight told the
NTSB that only about an eighth of the edge lights
on Runway 22 were lit.

I don't think this is a huge stretch. If nearly 90% of the lights on
4/22 were out the night before, it would not seem strange that 100% of
them were out the next morning. They were not primarily responsible,
but I really doubt that they have "ZERO honest" liability.

Not an excuse, but another link in the chain.

Austin

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
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.

As Gig said, they don't operate in a vacuum -- they operate in an extremely
COMPETITIVE market that has little leeway for mistakes. For a company
operating on thin margins, such a hit may well prove fatal (no pun
intended). It's the economic version of Darwin's law (not to mention
Murphy's).


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY
--
“Nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding
the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental
advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve
to intimidate the public and even scientists...there is a clear attempt to
establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
- Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, (6-26-06)

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,

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.
Um...no, Gig!

We have a legal system to find deep pockets; we (ostensibly) have a Justice
system to assign liability.

Just thought I'd clear that up! :~)

Matt Barrow
--
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it
be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they
delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of
their lives." - Tolstoy

"AustinMN" wrote in message
ups.com...

While I am also convinced the flight crew was primarily at fault, I
can't agree that the lighting company/contractor had "absolutely ZERO
honest liability" in this situation. If you read the article, you
would know that:

On Aug. 25, 2006, the airport issued a notice to
pilots that "numerous lights" on the main runway
were out of service. That night, at 1:40 a.m. Aug.
26, Polehinke landed at Lexington on a flight from
New York. The captain of that flight told the
NTSB that only about an eighth of the edge lights
on Runway 22 were lit.

I don't think this is a huge stretch. If nearly 90% of the lights on
4/22 were out the night before, it would not seem strange that 100% of
them were out the next morning. They were not primarily responsible,
but I really doubt that they have "ZERO honest" liability.

Not an excuse, but another link in the chain.

So, to remove their liability, does the lighting company have to smack the
pilots over the head to get them to read the notice?

On Aug 30, 2:09 pm, AustinMN wrote:
On Aug 30, 9:25 am, Jonathan Goodish wrote:

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.

While I am also convinced the flight crew was primarily at fault, I
can't agree that the lighting company/contractor had "absolutely ZERO
honest liability" in this situation. If you read the article, you
would know that:

On Aug. 25, 2006, the airport issued a notice to
pilots that "numerous lights" on the main runway
were out of service. That night, at 1:40 a.m. Aug.
26, Polehinke landed at Lexington on a flight from
New York. The captain of that flight told the
NTSB that only about an eighth of the edge lights
on Runway 22 were lit.

I don't think this is a huge stretch. If nearly 90% of the lights on
4/22 were out the night before, it would not seem strange that 100% of
them were out the next morning. They were not primarily responsible,
but I really doubt that they have "ZERO honest" liability.

Not an excuse, but another link in the chain.

Austin

I'm afraid I must disagree. The PILOTS made the decision to take off,
even knowing the runway lights were shaky. The lighting company may
have been a number of things (i.e. in breach of their contract,
technically incompetent, etc.), but in terms of THIS accident? They
bear absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. None. Neither does the
controller who turned around after making sure they acknowledged the
correct runway. Nobosy else does, other than the two 'pilots' who were
charged with being professional enough to know not to takeoff from the
wrong runway.

While there are always multiple 'links' in the chain, that is vastly
different from 'responsibility'. There are always 'could haves'. But
in the end, a professional pilot is charged with making the correct
decisions, and being competent and professional enough to protect the
safety of those who have (literally) entrusted him with their lives.

If the pilots felt uncomfortable with the lighting situation, all
EITHER of them had to do was say "This is not safe, and I refuse to
takeoff from this runway. The airline can fire me if they wish, but
we're going back to the gate." While difficult to say, that would have
been ALL that was necessary to protect the lives of their passengers.
But they didn't. They didn't do LOTS of things that were their
responsibility to. How much more fundamental can a responsibility of a
pilot be than to make certain you are on the right runway????

The pilots here have 100% of the responsibility for this accident.
Other parties bear absolutely none.

I know it may sound pedantic and arrogant to say, but when you accept
a unique trust (in this case, a trust placed in you by your pasengers
to protect their lives, by virtue of your special skills,
professionalism, and understanding), you bear a deep and profound
obligation to honor that. Either one of these guys could have quit and
gone to work at McDonald's if they didn't feel up to the
responsibilities of being a professional pilot. Obviously they FELT up
to the task. They just weren't. And because of that, 48 innocent
people died (the Captain died by his own hand...I know it sounds
harsh, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for him, altho I feel sorry
for his family). Because of this I find it particuarly repugnant that
one of the 'pilots' who killed 49 human beings because of his
incompetence is trying to extort money from an INNOCENT party, to help
pay for injuries that nobody but him and his Captain are responsible
for.

Cheers,

Cap

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it belongs.

We don't have that.

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

This is why we have a legal system to assign liability where it belongs.

Not much liability gets assigned to parties without assets.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)