Another GA lawsuite

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...15X45423&key=1

NTSB Identification: NYC01FA040 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, November 26, 2000 in RIXFORD, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/14/01
Aircraft: Mooney M20K, registration: N252MW
Injuries: 3 Fatal.

The pilots family is suing the FAA for wrongful death. This report
clearly indicates the pilot was at fault. Inexperienced in IMC and flew
it into the ground. What am I missing here?

Kevin wrote in newsr2yb.253469$275.925372@attbi_s53:

NTSB Identification: NYC01FA040 . The docket is stored in the (offline)

The pilots family is suing the FAA for wrongful death. This report
clearly indicates the pilot was at fault. Inexperienced in IMC and flew
it into the ground. What am I missing here?

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. So it's just a matter of what an attorney can convince
the jury of that *might* have happened. Doesn't have to prove that his
scenario DID happen, just that it might have.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

James M. Knox wrote:
....

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. ...

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

Icebound wrote:

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

Yep. And the judge might rule some of that testimony inadmissible.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

"James M. Knox" wrote in message
...
Kevin wrote in newsr2yb.253469$275.925372@attbi_s53:

NTSB Identification: NYC01FA040 . The docket is stored in the (offline)

The pilots family is suing the FAA for wrongful death. This report
clearly indicates the pilot was at fault. Inexperienced in IMC and flew
it into the ground. What am I missing here?

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. So it's just a matter of what an attorney can convince
the jury of that *might* have happened.

Not true. Provided the judge allows such a case to go to the jury, the
jury must be convinced by the greater weight of the evidence that the
defendant owed a specific duty of care to the plaintiff, that the duty was
breached, and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages.


Doesn't have to prove that his
scenario DID happen, just that it might have.

This is a misstatement of the law. It is misleading. "Might" have could
mean a 1 in 3 chance, which is insufficient to get the case to the jury.


-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

"Icebound" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
James M. Knox wrote:
...

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. ...

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

A highway patrolman's motor vehicle accident report is not admissible in
court. Except insofar as he is a witness, his report is mostly a document
containing hearsay. Are you suggesting that hearsay be admitted in court?

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Icebound wrote:

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

Yep. And the judge might rule some of that testimony inadmissible.

How so, and what testimony do you foresee as inadmissible?


George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they
really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy
lifting".

"Larry Smith" wrote:

"Might" have could mean a 1 in 3 chance, which
is insufficient to get the case to the jury.

I'm puzzled by this statement. As I understand it, the burden of proof for
civil cases is the balance of probabilities, so if there's better than a 1
in 2 chance that things are as the plaintiff claims, then his case is made.
But you appear to be saying that a similar test will be applied to establish
whether the case would even come before a jury, which seems a awfully high
hurdle for a civil case. I know that some criminal cases have to meet this
test in preliminary hearings, but that makes sense, as the burden of proof
in the case is much higher ie. beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought you
could only get a civil case struck out (and thereby prevent it coming before
the jury) if you could show that the case has no chance of succeeding even
if all the facts fall so as to favor the plaintiff? I'm not a lawyer, so I
could easily be 100% wrong here, but I'd welcome some clarification so I
might better understand the procedures involved.

--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane

Are we sure the family is suing the FAA? It's hard to believe since the
Federal Govt typically hides from lawsuits under qualified immunity or some
such principle.

My guess is this case will be thrown out in a summary judgement.

-Brian
N33431
Iowa City, IA

"Icebound" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
James M. Knox wrote:
...

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. ...

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

"Kevin" wrote in message
newsr2yb.253469$275.925372@attbi_s53...
The pilots family is suing the FAA for wrongful death. This report
clearly indicates the pilot was at fault. Inexperienced in IMC and flew
it into the ground. What am I missing here?


$$$$$