Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On Dec 8, 8:27 pm, Bob Noel
wrote:

However, I think we can agree that lawyers only go after those with
assets, making it obvious that they aren't interested in determining
fault but rather getting money.


Of course we're interested in proving fault. That's how we make
money!

skym wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:50 am, Matt Whiting wrote:

Tell me you aren't really this naive? If this had been a local mom and
pop coffee shop that had no liability insurance, do you really think a
jury would have made this award? Do you even think the lawyer would
have even taken the case? These cases and awards are DIRECTLY related
to the wealth of the defendant. This isn't by statue, I agree, but it
is de facto.
Matt

They would have rendered the compensatory award. Certainly not the
punitive award, since mom and pop probably didn't have over 700 scald
cases in the prior years, or have conducted research and had prior
knowledge that the coffee was not fit for human consumption. In fact,
I'll bet that if mom and pop knew those things, they would have
lowered the temp. It's the fact that McD knew it and did nothing that
contributed to this result. The amount of punitive damages can be
based on worth and income, but not underlying liability for punitive
damages.

Don't know if an attorney would have taken the case. If mom and pop
had few assets, they could not pay the damage that the plaintiff
incurred, So why sue them? Would you, or would you enjoy putting
people into bankruptcy?

So, you ARE agreeing that economics rather than culpability plays a
major role. I think that is where this thread started. :-)

I rest my case.


Matt

Recently, posted:

[...] A private school system has the benefit of being
more efficient and in the long run would definitely produce much
better schools per dollar spent.

Care to support that assertion with some facts?

The point of my previous comment is that, here in Ohio, the private
schools that have sprung up as a result of adopting the vouchers approach
are neither efficient nor do they provide a quality education. In many
cases, they are worse than the worst public schools. OTOH, we have *many*
private schools that do provide high quality education at significant
cost. We also have many public school systems that provide education
comparable to the best private schools. Not surprisingly, they are in the
wealthier communities. So, as far as I can tell, while you might not get
what you pay for, you certainly won't get what you don't pay for.

--
Neil

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:56 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:


Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
of jury trials.

A large, local company was sued for billions in the breast implant
issue. The lawyers pushing the case made more than the entire
corporation gross per year. In the end it was far easier and much
cheaper to just give them a couple Billion dollars than to fight junk
science with true science. The average juror is easily mislead by junk
science as the real thing. It only takes a convincing presentation by
a so called expert to sway the jury.

Does it really matter in a rigged court system?

Gallileo's Revenge Junk Science in the Courtroom by Peter W Huber
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/gallileo.htm

wrote in message
...

Aound here private schools run anywhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a year
and the systems that spent the most per pupil spend less than $7,000. If
the taxpayers give coupons for private schools rather than fund the
public schools taxes would have to go up about $20,000 per student. Are
you going to vote for that tax increase?

I am not sure that the cost of private schools will remain as high if
all public schools were gradually converted into private schools. We
would also not be paying taxes to support public schools in the new
system.

My fear is that, instead, kids would be going to schools sponsored by
Starbuck's or McDonald's, and they'd learn all about how tasty coffee or
french fries are. The kids at the school down the road from us can't sell
bottled water for fundraisers because of a noncompetition clause in the
school's contract with Pepsi.

Maybe Wal-Mart could sponsor a school so the kids could learn all about lead
poisoning.

-c

On Dec 9, 2:07 pm, Angelo Campanella
wrote:
And I have coined a corollary:

"These days, justics is considered served when the law is satisfied."

I mentioned this to a lawyer; he was not happy about it, but did not
refute me.

I don't know why he would be unhappy about it. It is actually a
pretty accurate description of what it's all about.

On Dec 9, 7:47 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
So, you ARE agreeing that economics rather than culpability plays a
major role. I think that is where this thread started. :-)
I rest my case.

"...plays a major role" in what? Culpability plays the major or only
role in whether the deft should pay anything. As for the deft who
doesn't have the means to compensate a pltf for her loss, it only
makes sense not to pursue the deft. What would be the purpose, except
to harrass?

C J Campbell wrote:
The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was one
of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are suing
Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane
is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
question did have boots.

So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
Cessna's operating instructions.
To Mr. Campbell: Is Cessna going out of business because of this lawsuit?

Jay Honeck wrote:
Lets have real school choice nationwide. Let parents have the money
they are paying in taxes so they can send their kids to private
schools if they want. That's step number one. Get rid of teacher's
lobbies like the NEA... if they are all so dedicated to education why
do they need to be spending so much money lobbying congress?
Wouldn't that money be better spent in the actual education process?
Or how about just higher salaries for the good teachers?

We have school choice here in Iowa City, to a degree. We may enroll
our kids in any school in the district, so long as we can figure out a
way to deliver them each morning. (Well, this year they curtailed
that practice between the high schools, because one side of town is
growing way faster than the other.)

This works okay, to a degree -- but one result is all the bad kids
(AKA: The ones without caring parents) end up in the same schools.
All the good parents move their kids OUT of the bad schools.

This, of course, leads to other problems. High teacher turnover/
burnout becomes a real problem. You would think more resources would
be poured into the bad schools, but because the student count drops,
they actually get LESS money, unless extraordinary efforts are made.

Because of the totally screwed up employer/employee relations between
administators and teachers, there is little hope of a solution coming
from that quarter. The teacher's union stands in the way of
innovation -- union contracts don't permit too much in the way of
experimentation with staffing -- and the administrators are just as
bad or worse.

"Administrator" is just a fancy name for "bureaucrat" -- and by their
nature bureacrats do not want anything to change, unless it means more
money and less work. These bureacrats, therefore, appointed by our
elected school boards and supposedly safeguarding the People's money
by working in their best interest, end up working in collusion with
the teachers unions to make sure that nothing actually changes. In
the end these two forces -- seemingly in conflict -- tend to work
together to ensure that no solutions are forthcoming.

Throwing private schools into the mix of "school choice" -- without
fixing the underlying conflicting interests in this employee-employer
relationship -- would be a disaster, IMHO. And that's just not going
to happen in today's political climate.

Which, of course, brings us back to where we started -- and are
stuck.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
To Jay Honeck: I ask you the same question I asked MR. Campbell, is
Cessna going out of business because of this lawsuit?

In article ,
John Boyle wrote:

To Jay Honeck: I ask you the same question I asked MR. Campbell, is
Cessna going out of business because of this lawsuit?

what is your point?

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