kallend 2,088
Quote
It should be a crime to bring a lawsuit like this before all the facts are in. NOBODY knows what happened or who is responsible. To sue at this juncture is BS and I would LOVE to meet the people suing face to face and tell them how selfish they are.
Mike
How will all the facts get in?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Thats cool, and as long as the insurance is reasonable (funeral expenses) that fine. And for sure disability insurance is a good idea for everyone.
I am just sick of everyone thinking that they should be paid when shit happens.
I think it is rediculous how much money we donated to the 9-11 fund, probaly all the victims had insurance and for sure nobody starved. We should have saved that money for Tsunami relief. They needed help WAY more than anyone on 9-11.
I am just sick of everyone thinking that they should be paid when shit happens.
I think it is rediculous how much money we donated to the 9-11 fund, probaly all the victims had insurance and for sure nobody starved. We should have saved that money for Tsunami relief. They needed help WAY more than anyone on 9-11.
How will all the facts get in?
Well, at least the NTSB report. What if it comes back that some Terrorists shot it down? Certainly no-one names in the suit is responsible.
To sue the dead pilots estate and cost his family money defending someone that might have done no wrong is so reprehensible I cant believe it.
I wouldnt piss in these fuckers mouths if their teeth were on fire!
I hope karma catches up to them.
QuoteSo, failing to name everyone can result in significantly reduced, or even zero recovery for the plaintiff
Quote
It makes sense, I just have a real problem with it. I know the family is bitter, but I think the reaction is innappropriate and shows greed more than anything.
As much as I disagree with most lawsuits, I think the noble thing to do would be to wait for the cause to be revealed and fault to be determined. Then name those who were truly negligent in the lawsuit. I'm not in law whatsoever, but have sat jury on a civil suit so maybe this isn't possible. Hypothetically, lets say the engine blew because the dropzone purposely avoided the scheduled inspections to save money. Once that cause is determined, I can't understand how the dropzone could get out of a suit by blaming the engine manufacturer or the pilot.
Seems to me that this stuff only shows they are interested in "how much money can I get?", and not determining who is really responsible.
Quote
It makes sense, I just have a real problem with it. I know the family is bitter, but I think the reaction is innappropriate and shows greed more than anything.
As much as I disagree with most lawsuits, I think the noble thing to do would be to wait for the cause to be revealed and fault to be determined. Then name those who were truly negligent in the lawsuit. I'm not in law whatsoever, but have sat jury on a civil suit so maybe this isn't possible. Hypothetically, lets say the engine blew because the dropzone purposely avoided the scheduled inspections to save money. Once that cause is determined, I can't understand how the dropzone could get out of a suit by blaming the engine manufacturer or the pilot.
Seems to me that this stuff only shows they are interested in "how much money can I get?", and not determining who is really responsible.
Simple. The dropzone says "the pilot was supposed to be responsible for making sure scheduled maintenance is done. He was responsible for checking his aircraft and ensuring the safety of the passengers. We just give him a runway and loan him the plane."
The other issue is that most of the time, the facts do not come out until the lawsuit. So, they don't know who's responsible. Maybe routine maintenance really was part of the pilot's job. Maybe it's in his contract. Maybe the dropzone was supposed to take care of everything. Maybe, the dropzone had a contract with the manufacturer for maintenance. Maybe there was a problem with the aircraft itself. A lot of this won't be known until the completion of the discovery process, and then they can drop names as necessary.
Quote
How will all the facts get in?
Well, at least the NTSB report. What if it comes back that some Terrorists shot it down? Certainly no-one names in the suit is responsible.
To sue the dead pilots estate and cost his family money defending someone that might have done no wrong is so reprehensible I cant believe it.
I wouldnt piss in these fuckers mouths if their teeth were on fire!
I hope karma catches up to them.
At this point, the pilot's family is probably not going to do much of anything until they see the facts. Ditto with the dropzone. They'll sit back, wait for the report, pass the report along to the plaintiffs and then ask the plaintiffs if they are sure they still want to sue. If the plane was shot down by a terrorist, chances are, the suit will be dropped.
Quote
Dont get me wrong, if there was gross negligence, I believe there should be reprocussions. If I had a kid that died in a plane crash, and the mechanic doctored the logs, I want him to go to jail. I do not want any money from the airline, engine mfr., or the airport.
Besides, you are not truly hurting the responsible entities, you are costing their insurance company, which means higher rates for the rest of us.
If the mechanic did something like that, and it comes out in the civil suit, he will probably face criminal prosecution. However, often, if it wasn't for the plaintiffs in the civil suit hunting down the facts, criminal conduct would go unnoticed.
Also, most dropzones don't have insurance. Neither do most jump pilots. The only people who have insurance in this case is probably the aircraft manufacturer, and they'll only be held responsible if there was a design defect or if they were negligent, and in that case, they should pay.
Suing the manufacturer will allow them to obtain discovery from them about the aircraft schematics and design history, and they might not be able to get that otherwise. If there really is a problem with the plane, that's where they'll find out.
Quote
I can understand the parents suing the dropzone and only the dropzone, if and only if gross negligence was proven, which is obviously not the case this early.
You don't know that. If, as was reported on the Incidents thread, the Otter door was repeatedly left open during takeoff rather than keeping it closed until at least 1000 feet, I'd consider that substantially negligent. However, I'd also reserve judgement until it's absolutely confirmed that that was the case.
kallend 2,088
Quote
How will all the facts get in?
Well, at least the NTSB report. What if it comes back that some Terrorists shot it down? Certainly no-one names in the suit is responsible.
To sue the dead pilots estate and cost his family money defending someone that might have done no wrong is so reprehensible I cant believe it.
I wouldnt piss in these fuckers mouths if their teeth were on fire!
I hope karma catches up to them.
NTSB reports are inadmissible as evidence, so after waiting 2 years or so for the NTSB to report, they then have to hire their own experts, hope the evidence is still available, and wait another 4 years for the case to wind its way through the system? Doesn't sound like a smart idea to me.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
1) It helps cover costs should anythign happen to hi; and
2) It cannot be canceled or denied for him when he gets older. He can purchase more (to an extent) and it canot be denied, even if he gets cancer, etc. I want to make sure that he is insurable, and the best way to do that is to keep him insured.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites