Lawyer Rebuttal

[Airman1270 0]

At a recent memorial service a lawyer spoke of the deceased, who himself had been a lawyer. He said something like "Oh, sure, you make your lawyer jokes, but you sure don't mind having us around when you need our services."

I did not know most of the people there, and it was not the time for a debate. But my instinct was to shout "Don't forget - you guys are frequently the reason we need your services in the first place!"

In a previous discussion about this topic I asked someone to explain why it is common practice to name people in a lawsuit who had nothing to do with whatever the mishap was that prompted legal action.

Example - UPS driver runs red light & hits someone. Obviously the driver is at fault, not the company for whom he works. Why sue UPS when nobody other than the driver was in a postion to prevent the accident?

Example - Student jumper dies after failing to react to a malfunction. Why is the pilot named in the suit when there was NOTHING he could have done to prevent the accident?

Sure, the pilot would appreciate some help getting his name cleared, but why should he have to worry about it in the first place?

Last time I asked I was reprimanded by people who have actually gone through law school and know the intimate details of how things work. But they could not answer the basic questions I have posed. This is confusing.

Cheers anyway,
Jon S.

[Gene03 0]

They do it just to turn everybody upside down and see how much money falls out of their pockets.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

why it is common practice to name people in a lawsuit who had nothing to do with whatever the mishap was that prompted legal action.

From this quote came:

Quote

Example - UPS driver runs red light & hits someone. Obviously the driver is at fault, not the company for whom he works. Why sue UPS when nobody other than the driver was in a postion to prevent the accident?

Here's the explanation. The doctrine is called "respondeat superior" ("let the master answer") and is also called "vicarious liability." Typically, it is involved when a person commits a wrong when in the bidding of another. Typically, you gotta establish that the act was done in the course and scope of employment (not by some dude off-duty wearing a UPS shirt and not by some packer who decided to take the truck for a spin (aka "frolic and detour")); and the employee must have been doing something for the benefit of the employer. The employer is responsible for the employee acting on its behalf. The UPS driver is acting on behalf of UPS, and not solely for his own benefit.

Quote

Example - Student jumper dies after failing to react to a malfunction. Why is the pilot named in the suit when there was NOTHING he could have done to prevent the accident?

If it was discovered that the rig was not TSA'd, then we would know that by law it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that no non-TSA'd rig is allowed to exits his aircraft from altitude. The law is what it is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

If it was discovered that the rig was not TSA'd, then we would know that by law it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that no non-TSA'd rig is allowed to exits his aircraft from altitude. The law is what it is.

Not once in my 10yrs as a jump pilot did anyone die jumping out of my plane. Not once in my 10yrs did I ever check anyones rig for TSA status. I would ask if reserves were in-date, but dat was it.................!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Example - Student jumper dies after failing to react to a malfunction. Why is the pilot named in the suit when there was NOTHING he could have done to prevent the accident?

If it was discovered that the rig was not TSA'd, then we would know that by law it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that no non-TSA'd rig is allowed to exits his aircraft from altitude. The law is what it is.

Yea but more generally anyone named in a lawsuit will have a lawyer pointing to anyone and everyone else to attribute blame. If everyone who might possibly be blamed in the incident by anyone involved (or not) is named then you have covered your bases.

[lawrocket 3]

Of course, this is the reason why I work up my cases before filing them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Example - UPS driver runs red light & hits someone. Obviously the driver is at fault, not the company for whom he works. Why sue UPS when nobody other than the driver was in a postion to prevent the accident?

Your question makes an incorrect assumption that it is not the company's fault. There may be a training problem, there may be a history of problems that suggests he should not have been driving the truck in the first place.

Or, from an economic perspective, the legislature of the state decided that the owner of a vehicle or employer is in the best position to insure the risk of the crash and should have to do so rather than society bear the expense of his medical care and rehabilitation.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[ECVZZ 0]

Quote

If it was discovered that the rig was not TSA'd TSO'd, then we would know that by law it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that no non-TSA'd TSO'd rig is allowed to exits his aircraft from altitude. The law is what it is.

Lest someone think that the TSA has any authority concerning design and/or manufacturing standards.

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[Airman1270 0]

Your question makes an incorrect assumption that it is not the company's fault. There may be a training problem, there may be a history of problems that suggests he should not have been driving the truck in the first place...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

If the driver possesses a driver's license, it is presumed he understands how to operate a vehicle.

If there in fact WAS a training problem, then perhaps some legal action against the company might be justified. Are you saying a lawsuit against the company would be the exception, and then only after a training problem had been identified? It seems to me that, given the current legal culture, a suit against the company would be considered routine regardless of any evidence of failure (or lack thereof) on the part of the company leadership. But perhaps I'm wrong.

In the months after I broke my ankle on my first jump I was confronted by many people whose knee-jerk response was to suggest I sue somebody, anybody, because I had been injured. They held firmly to this attitude even after I explained that the accident was my fault. This attitude is frightening.

Cheers,
Jon