Awwww, I guess the grieving process is faster than I thought

[Murdoughnut]

Maybe it's hard for you guys to wrap your mind around because it's your industry and you take it too personal. Let me give you another example and you tell me if this is greed.

My dad is a trucker and one of the guys he drives with had been experiencing some real issues with fatigue. He had knodded off a few times while driving down the road. Concerned, he informed the company and requested a more limited work schedule. Basically, he was told that if he left the board (equivallent of the "line" for airlines) he'd lose his job. So out of concern for his pension and his family, he kept driving. A few months later he knodded off while driving down the road and didn't wake up until after he had hit a car head on, killing four people.

So the families of the deceased sued the company - I don't remember for how much, but it was in the tens of millions. Was the company liable? Of course they were. Was the driver responsible for the accident? Of course he was - though it's easy to sympathize with his side of the story. Were each of their lives worth, say, $10-million? The four men killed were all the principal bread winners of the respective families - so without them, the families had to forfit decades of lost wages, not to mention years of memories they'll never be able to create.

I definitely agree that tort reform is needed, but I think it's too easy to simply look at a large sum of money and claim that the family was greedy. Do you think for a second that they wouldn't give it all back if they could have 10 more minutes with their loved one? Until you lose someone to another person's negligence, you really can't understand what these people go through.

 

[Long Time Gone]

Maybe it's hard for you guys to wrap your mind around because it's your industry and you take it too personal. Let me give you another example and you tell me if this is greed.

How about the first example first and the second example second instead of the second example first and no first example.

 

[avbug]

The first example is the thread topic (which appears to be comair, but who knows), and the second example is his father.

I don't know that I find it easy to sympathize with the concept of pushing one's self to the point of killing four people for the sake of keeping a pension. If it's dangerous, then do something else.

As a Driver, or as a PIC, we have not just the responsibility for our own life, but for every life on board. Not just for our own life and every life on board, but every life on the ramp and the aircraft around us. Not just our own lives and the lives of all aboard and those on the ramp and in the aircraft around us, but on the ground beneath us, off the end of the runway, ad infinitum. We are responsible.

Failure in that responsibility must be answered. What takes a few moments to occur, a crash, a fire, a loss of property and life, affects many for a lifetime. Even millions of dollars is small compensation for that loss. I have no heartburn with the legal action that follows, though more and more the judgements are far too excessive and random.

This is the price of doing business, and the legal proceedings that follow the event are always far less costly than the losses in the event themselves. I wouldn't trade my mother, brother, or children for a million or ten. Take them from me and whatever you compensate will never be enough.

 

[kf4amu]

The copilot should sue the passengers because without them, the plane would have been able to takeoff on that runway.


Being facetious of course, but thats how ridiculous this is.

 

[A Squared]

I wouldn't trade my mother, brother, or children for a million or ten.

Yes, but would you trade your ex-wife for a million dollars?

 

[Murdoughnut]

I haven't seen exact numbers of what the families are requesting, but you have to remember that the initial amount is always way higher than what the attorneys actually expect to get. The actual amount will likely be something comparable to other accidents, adjusted for the person's age, wage earning ability, etc.

If you want to hear about a crazy lawsuit (which was fortunately thrown out of court by the judge) check this out. I mentioned earlier that my father is a truck driver. Several years ago he was driving on a two lane highway when a church bus coming towards him had a blowout. The bus swerved sorta broadside into his lane. Instead of T-boning the bus, he opted to put his rig in a ditch on the side of the road (which led to the entire rig tipping over on its side and a considerable amount of damage). A couple months later he was served with a lawsuit filed by one of the parents of a kid on the bus. The parents claimed that their son now had a perpetual fear of large trucks, and that any time they would drive by one on the road, he'd go into a panic attack. Like I said, fortunately the judge tossed it out - still really worried my dad for several months, though. Fortunately he received a lot of cards and letters from the families of other kids on the bus thanking him, though.

 

[cjs]

My dad is a trucker and one of the guys he drives with had been experiencing some real issues with fatigue. He had knodded off a few times while driving down the road. Concerned, he informed the company and requested a more limited work schedule. Basically, he was told that if he left the board (equivallent of the "line" for airlines) he'd lose his job. So out of concern for his pension and his family, he kept driving. A few months later he knodded off while driving down the road and didn't wake up until after he had hit a car head on, killing four people.

Maybe I'm missing something here. How on earth is this the company's fault? An employee was unfit for duty, knew it, informed the company, was told to either shape up or leave. Kept driving, and ended up killing four people. Who does the family sue? The company, because their lawyers know who has deep pockets. Two wrong's don't make a right, but that's exactly the sort of logic people use to justify this sort of lawsuit. The ramification? The company will probably be much less tolerant of drivers who express any sort of job-related distress. So, you complain about something, and you're out on the street. Way to go, lawyers, you've really made the world a better place for both drivers and workers ...

 

[Murdoughnut]

Maybe I'm missing something here. How on earth is this the company's fault? An employee was unfit for duty, knew it, informed the company, was told to either shape up or leave. Kept driving, and ended up killing four people. Who does the family sue? The company, because their lawyers know who has deep pockets. Two wrong's don't make a right, but that's exactly the sort of logic people use to justify this sort of lawsuit. The ramification? The company will probably be much less tolerant of drivers who express any sort of job-related distress. So, you complain about something, and you're out on the street. Way to go, lawyers, you've really made the world a better place for both drivers and workers ...

I think the logic was that the company knew the driver was having fatigue issues but still let him keep driving. Civil law in this country always seems to come down hard on the companies - whether it's fair or not.

 

[2dumb2drive]

Yes, but would you trade your ex-wife for a million dollars?

No, but ill pay you a million to take my current wife!

 

[Gorilla]

Here's the deal, guys. Juries award insane damages because deep in their hearts, they're hoping one day to be sitting where the plaintiff is. By jacking awards into the stratosphere, they create a history of titanic cash payouts that they hope one day to partake of.