gubernator
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Posts
- 16
You state that lawyers are responsible for the high cost of aviation. That is incorrect. The responsibility for the high cost of aviation is the negligence of airplane manufacturers.
Assuming that your figures re the cost of a new airplane are correct, why do you think it is that $110,000 of the purchase price goes toward liability? What is liability? In this context, it is a sum of money that one is legally obligated to pay because of one's negligence. Cessna spends $110,000 (again, using your figures) per airplane it manufactures because of its negligent acts that result in harm.
I think the general public has this notion that a lawyer, acting alone, can simply draft a letter to a large corporation, demanding millions of dollars for an injury that never occurred, and the corporation will write out a check just for the asking. I assure you that's not the case. When a corporation writes a check to settle any case it's because it has been advised by experienced counsel that a jury is likely to find that the corporation did something wrong.
That brings up another good point. A lawyer can't force a company to pay a dime without going to court. What about the role of juries and judges in the high cost of aviation? Surely they're to blame for awarding millions of dollars to undeserving plaintiffs. I've heard a lot of good lawyer jokes lately. Have you heard any good jury jokes?
This theme of lawyers being responsible for all of society's evils is also present in the medical industry. A recent news story told of how a trauma hospital was being "forced" to close because of the high cost of obtaining malpractice insurance, which was blamed on lawyers. One proposal was to cap the amount of damages an injured patient could receive in a lawsuit against his doctor for malpractice. That is a bad solution. Again, malpractice insurance is high because insurance companies pay out millions of dollars to settle claims brought against doctors for -- guess what? -- their negligent acts. The solution is to train physicians to make fewer mistakes, not to punish the person who is harmed by the mistake. Where is the incentive to be a better doctor when the consequences for committing malpractice are so severely reduced? That's like saying we can solve the problem of drunk driving -- and the related problem of the high cost of auto insurance for drunk drivers -- not by enforcement and education, but by reducing the penalty for drunk driving to a fine of $25.
How do you propose that we, as a society, reduce the cost of general aviation? Grant manufacturers immunity for anything they do wrong? Limit the amount of money an injured plaintiff can recover? You try telling someone who has been severely crippled and burned in an aviation accident that a jury found to be the fault of the manufacturer that he can only get $25,000 for his injuries, when his hospital bills alone are into the millions.
Sorry about the rant. Anyway, as andymsn pointed out, you ought to print out your post and save it for the day you're injured in an airplane because of the negligence of its manufacturer.
Assuming that your figures re the cost of a new airplane are correct, why do you think it is that $110,000 of the purchase price goes toward liability? What is liability? In this context, it is a sum of money that one is legally obligated to pay because of one's negligence. Cessna spends $110,000 (again, using your figures) per airplane it manufactures because of its negligent acts that result in harm.
I think the general public has this notion that a lawyer, acting alone, can simply draft a letter to a large corporation, demanding millions of dollars for an injury that never occurred, and the corporation will write out a check just for the asking. I assure you that's not the case. When a corporation writes a check to settle any case it's because it has been advised by experienced counsel that a jury is likely to find that the corporation did something wrong.
That brings up another good point. A lawyer can't force a company to pay a dime without going to court. What about the role of juries and judges in the high cost of aviation? Surely they're to blame for awarding millions of dollars to undeserving plaintiffs. I've heard a lot of good lawyer jokes lately. Have you heard any good jury jokes?
This theme of lawyers being responsible for all of society's evils is also present in the medical industry. A recent news story told of how a trauma hospital was being "forced" to close because of the high cost of obtaining malpractice insurance, which was blamed on lawyers. One proposal was to cap the amount of damages an injured patient could receive in a lawsuit against his doctor for malpractice. That is a bad solution. Again, malpractice insurance is high because insurance companies pay out millions of dollars to settle claims brought against doctors for -- guess what? -- their negligent acts. The solution is to train physicians to make fewer mistakes, not to punish the person who is harmed by the mistake. Where is the incentive to be a better doctor when the consequences for committing malpractice are so severely reduced? That's like saying we can solve the problem of drunk driving -- and the related problem of the high cost of auto insurance for drunk drivers -- not by enforcement and education, but by reducing the penalty for drunk driving to a fine of $25.
How do you propose that we, as a society, reduce the cost of general aviation? Grant manufacturers immunity for anything they do wrong? Limit the amount of money an injured plaintiff can recover? You try telling someone who has been severely crippled and burned in an aviation accident that a jury found to be the fault of the manufacturer that he can only get $25,000 for his injuries, when his hospital bills alone are into the millions.
Sorry about the rant. Anyway, as andymsn pointed out, you ought to print out your post and save it for the day you're injured in an airplane because of the negligence of its manufacturer.