Another GA lawsuite

"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
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?


A rigorous NTSB investigation is very different from a highway patrolman's
report.

FAA would have to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for
the court???

NTSB factual statements are admissible; conclusions are not.
(According to NTSB people.)

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:55:31 GMT
Kevin wrote:

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?



You're forgetting that if it goes to trial they can win. A jury will
see the big bad FAA and the grieving family. Who says you can't put a
price on human lifes?



R. Hubbell

man, this flight should not have happened at all. They say that usually
accidents are caused by multiple things going wrong and not just one thing.

This guy only had like 40 hours of solo time, the rest were instruction.

here is an article written about him from the owner of his flight school
http://www.landings.com/_landings/fo.../article3.html



Kevin wrote:

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?

I just had to quote this from the owner of his flight school

"This instructor reported back to me later that Pete had no business in
this airplane, that he was "way behind the airplane." The situation soon
went beyond our control to correct it however when Pete went and took an
accelerated, guaranteed instrument course elsewhere. I believe he finished
this "Crash" course in mid November, just in time to take his wife and
their 13 year old son on a family Thanksgiving Trip to Pennsylvania. I
guess the moral of this story is that flight instructors have a
responsibility to aviation and the people in it, and this responsibility is
not to get your hours as fast as you can for your big airplane job, or to
sell a well off student more airplane than he can handle so that you can
get a nice commission check"


Kevin wrote:

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?

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
...
"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,

Correct. Proof by the greater weight of the evidence, or a preponderance of
the evidence, or by tipping the scales in favor of the plaintiff.

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.

Usually judges let even flimsy cases go to the jury but if the plaintiff is
playing with 33% of the marbles and the defendant has 67%, the judge will
step in and dismiss sooner or later. That's my experience, even though the
judge waits until ALL the evidence is in, or even until after a verdict for
the plaintiff.

The rule, at the end of the plaintiff's evidence and upon motion to dismiss
by the defendant, is that if the plaintiff has failed to show evidence of
each of the elements of his case, he is subject to dismissal. The court,
if it finds by considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff that the plaintiff has failed to establish he is entitled to
relief, may enter an order of dismissal against the plaintiff.

So let's assume that each of the plaintiff's witnesses testifies that X
could have occurred or might have occurred, instead of saying that it in
fact DID occur, you won't get THAT to the jury.

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?

The point is that a plaintiff must affirmatively produce evidence to support
his allegations sounding in tort against the FAA by competent evidence.
When a judge dismisses at the end of the plaintiff's evidence, and he does
it quite often in my neck of the woods, it's not only because the
plaintiff's case has suffered a fatal flaw in an element of proof but also
because his evidence preponderates against a verdict any jury might award
him.

There are a whole battery of motions a plaintiff must withstand before he
collects, and his case had better be better than "might have occurred" or he
ain't going to collect. This law isn't so much written in the books as it
is in the history of lawyering.

I'm not a lawyer,
I'm not either. I quit practicing some time ago. But I tried quite a few
jury cases in civil and criminal courts, and it's not like rolling dice or
showing that a state of facts may have existed.

so I
could easily be 100% wrong here, but I'd welcome some clarification so I
might better understand the procedures involved.
I believe you have a good grasp of what it takes to get past an order of
dismissal and get the case to the jury. Plus you have a good grasp of the
difference in the burden of proof in a civil case and a criminal case.
--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
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?


A rigorous NTSB investigation is very different from a highway patrolman's
report.

Still not admissible because it is almost all hearsay.

"Brian Sponcil" wrote in message
...

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.

That would be my guess too, or he could wait until the plaintiff rests his
case.


-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???

Interestingly, the NTSB report said "he handled the plane well", but
Crawford said "This instructor reported back to me later that Pete had no
business in this airplane, that he was "way behind the airplane."

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
man, this flight should not have happened at all. They say that usually
accidents are caused by multiple things going wrong and not just one thing.
This guy only had like 40 hours of solo time, the rest were instruction.
here is an article written about him from the owner of his flight school
http://www.landings.com/_landings/fo.../article3.html


Kevin wrote:
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?

Jeff wrote:
I just had to quote this from the owner of his flight school

"This instructor reported back to me later that Pete had no business in
this airplane, that he was "way behind the airplane." The situation soon
went beyond our control to correct it however when Pete went and took an
accelerated, guaranteed instrument course elsewhere. I believe he
finished this "Crash" course in mid November, just in time to take his
wife and their 13 year old son on a family Thanksgiving Trip to
Pennsylvania. I guess the moral of this story is that flight instructors
have a responsibility to aviation and the people in it, and this
responsibility is not to get your hours as fast as you can for your big
airplane job, or to sell a well off student more airplane than he can
handle so that you can get a nice commission check"


Kevin wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...15X45423&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001215X45423&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?


A classic example of:

Just because you can buy it, doesn't mean you can fly it.