A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th 09, 03:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Kingfish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

Quoted from aero-news.net

"Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
million, according to the mediator in the case.

The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
millions of dollars in property damage to the building.

The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.

Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.

Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
building and personal injury.

A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
tragic accident."

Nice to see common sense prevailed here.
  #2  
Old October 8th 09, 01:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

Kingfish wrote:
Quoted from aero-news.net

"Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
million, according to the mediator in the case.

The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
millions of dollars in property damage to the building.

The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.

Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.

Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
building and personal injury.

A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
tragic accident."

Nice to see common sense prevailed here.



Common sense?

You mean forgetting about the $60 million that was nowhere to be gotten
and settling for the $2 million which was everything gettable?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #3  
Old October 8th 09, 05:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mike Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

In article ,
wrote:

Kingfish wrote:
Quoted from aero-news.net

"Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
million, according to the mediator in the case.

The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
millions of dollars in property damage to the building.

The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.

Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.

Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
building and personal injury.

A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
tragic accident."

Nice to see common sense prevailed here.


Common sense?

You mean forgetting about the $60 million that was nowhere to be gotten
and settling for the $2 million which was everything gettable?


Everything looks pretty common sense to me regarding this particular
lawsuit.

Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
proper result.

The product liability suit is, of course, utter BS, but that's not the
focus of the story. Let us all hope that one gets thrown out of court
with extreme prejudice.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
  #4  
Old October 8th 09, 12:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Stubby[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

On Oct 7, 10:08*am, Kingfish wrote:
Quoted from aero-news.net

"Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
million, according to the mediator in the case.

The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
millions of dollars in property damage to the building.

The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.

Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.

Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
building and personal injury.

A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
tragic accident."

Nice to see common sense prevailed here.


But who was the Pilot in Command? If this was a training flight, it
would be the CFI. If it was just for fun, then whatever the two
pilots agreed on prevails. By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for
the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who
should be sued.
  #5  
Old October 8th 09, 01:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
a[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

On Oct 8, 7:58*am, Stubby wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:08*am, Kingfish wrote:





Quoted from aero-news.net


"Plaintiffs who suffered losses when a Cirrus SR-20 crashed into a
high-rise apartment building in Manhattan on October 11th, 2006 have
dropped a $60 million lawsuit, and have agreed to settle for $2
million, according to the mediator in the case.


The NTSB was unable to determine whether Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the
New York Yankees, or his flight instructor, 26-year-old Tyler Stanger,
was at the controls of the aircraft when it attempted a 180 degree
turn in tight quarters and impacted the building. Several pedestrians
were injured when debris fell from the crash site, and there were
millions of dollars in property damage to the building.


The online site Law.com reports that the plaintiffs dropped the suit
because both Lidle and Stanger carried $1 million in life insurance,
and their estates had "no other assets worth pursuing" in the case.
One personal injury claimant did not accept the settlement.


Lidle was a licensed pilot. The NTSB determined the cause of the
accident to be "the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment and
airmanship in trying to make a 180-degree turn led to the crash," but
never determined precisely who was pilot-in-command.


Law.com reports that the $2 million will be split between insurance
companies that claim to have paid out $16.5 million for damages to the
building and personal injury.


A product liability suit has been filed against Cirrus by Lidle's
widow and Stanger's estate, despite NTSB data that tends to indicate
that the airframe was not a significant factor in the cause of this
tragic accident."


Nice to see common sense prevailed here.


But who was the Pilot in Command? *If this was a training flight, it
would be the CFI. *If it was just for fun, then whatever the two
pilots agreed on prevails. * By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for
the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who
should be sued.

The OP indicates rational analysis was used -- if there are no assets
available, why sue?
  #6  
Old October 8th 09, 02:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
will alibrandi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

On Oct 7, 8:07*pm, Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

Common sense?

lol
--


Meaning the plaintiffs dropped their ridiculous $60M product liability
suit when it was determined the aircraft wasn't at fault for flying
into a building.
  #7  
Old October 8th 09, 06:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mike Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

In article
,
Stubby wrote:

But who was the Pilot in Command? If this was a training flight, it
would be the CFI. If it was just for fun, then whatever the two
pilots agreed on prevails. By 91.3, the PIC has responsibility for
the safe conduct of the flight, so he or his estate is the one who
should be sued.


Does that regulation hold sway once the plane has smashed into something
expensive and is thus no longer airborne? I'm no lawyer, but I think
that the FAA can't regulate civil courts' actions regarding damage on
the ground, and I could see reasoning in such a case where it's
determined that the instructor has some civil liability because he was
in a position of responsibility even if the FAA says that the other
pilot was PIC.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
  #8  
Old October 8th 09, 11:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mike Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

In article ,
Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:51:04 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

Two pilots crashed a plane into a building through negligence. The
insurance companies responsible for the building and the injured people
sue for damages related to the crash. They settle for much less than the
actual cost of the damage because the estates of the pilots can't pay
any more and it's not worth bankrupting them. I see nothing wrong here,
and it appears to be a perfect example of a justifiable lawsuit and a
proper result.


Negligent in a legal sense or negligent in an aviation sense, these are
two entirely different things. It was not reported that there was legal
negligence and it only can be assumed that there was aviation negligence
but since no one was the PIC or in control, you can't place aviation
negligence except in theory.


The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
  #9  
Old October 9th 09, 12:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Robert Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

Mike Ash wrote
The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.



Nope!! Legally can't be done.....

NTSB Reports in Court.
NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in court. More accurately, facts
from the report may be used, but opinions may not. There are two reasons
for this policy. First, the integrity of the NTSB’s investigation may be
compromised if final reports were used as evidence. Second, the autonomy of
the jury must be maintained during civil proceedings.

If NTSB reports were used as evidence, some witnesses may be less
forthcoming with information during the investigative process and could
compromise the quality of the report by giving a more desired answer
instead of an accurate answer to questions being asked of them.
Additionally, the NTSB and the people involved with the report could be
summoned to court to testify, which would prevent them from performing
their normal investigative duties.

Bob Moore

  #10  
Old October 9th 09, 04:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mike Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Cory Lidle suit settled for $2M

In article 7,
Robert Moore wrote:

Mike Ash wrote
The NTSB places the blame for the crash on "The pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd
bet that this is more than enough to place the legal liability for
damages squarely on the pilots. It certainly lines up with my personal
sense of right and wrong: you break it, you buy it.


Nope!! Legally can't be done.....

NTSB Reports in Court.
NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in court. More accurately, facts
from the report may be used, but opinions may not. There are two reasons
for this policy. First, the integrity of the NTSB’s investigation may be
compromised if final reports were used as evidence. Second, the autonomy of
the jury must be maintained during civil proceedings.

If NTSB reports were used as evidence, some witnesses may be less
forthcoming with information during the investigative process and could
compromise the quality of the report by giving a more desired answer
instead of an accurate answer to questions being asked of them.
Additionally, the NTSB and the people involved with the report could be
summoned to court to testify, which would prevent them from performing
their normal investigative duties.


Good to know, thanks.

However, I think my ultimate line of thought still works. If the NTSB
can conclude this from the facts, the court can too. This crash seems to
be fairly clearly the pilot's fault, whoever it happened to be at the
time. The one tricky part is where they assign blame to both, but I
don't personally see a problem with that either. Civil suits have a much
lower standard of proof, after all, and placing responsibility for
damages on the ground on both of the qualified pilots occupying the
cockpit seems justified to me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recent C421 crash is related to Cory Lidle jbskies Piloting 5 December 5th 06 02:48 PM
Winds A Factor In Lidle Crash Larry Dighera Piloting 72 November 10th 06 09:43 PM
Lidle crash: who is wrong? Blasto Piloting 57 October 20th 06 08:05 AM
Lidle, Langewiesche, and turns Snidely General Aviation 16 October 18th 06 03:10 AM
Cory Lidle's Plane Crash into Building [email protected] Piloting 1 October 11th 06 11:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.