FO of Ebersol crash is suing

[dhc8fo]

I sure hope the Ebersols sue the crap out of this ahole.

 

[clickclickboom]

Its not about winning in court, it is all about the defendants realizing that it will cost 3 milltion to defend and offering a 1 million settlement..

Sad but true

 

[ultrarunner]

Oh, everyone will get sued. However it's not likey the pilots have much. Ultimately it'll come down to the aircraft operator/owner/charter company/broker...or however the trip was run.

It's their underwriters that will ultimately write the check in payment for the willful misconduct on the part of the flight crew.

 

[sky37d]

I would suspect that the Ebersols have already filed their suit. Maybe this guy is just trying to divert blame from himself, by filing the suit that he did. However, I still think it has significant potential to backfire, thereby making him even more culpable.

It was a sad day, and it's obviously not over. I would suspect that everyone wishes that day never happened. Just as in any air tragedy. I do remember reading that there was a change, instituted by someone, FAA, manufacturer, charter guy, whatever, to inspect the wing before flight. Oh, I'm rambling, time to :beer:

Oh, btw, i think this is 1000

 

[Van Hooydonk]

John Shabaz is a Federal District Judge, not an Appellate Judge, so I am assuming that he has looked at the facts in the civil suit filings and is willing to hear the case. Which means if any of them are found to be lying, it's in federal court. That can't end well, unless of course you're Ronald Reagan.

Regarding the mother/daugher case I don't think there is any issue of insurance fraud. I don't know about Wisconsin, but in the state I call home a landowner has a non-deligable duty to maintain walkways, sidewalks, and driveways, free of snow and ice. Of course as with any law there are exceptions, such as the storm in progress rule. This doctrine, essentially states that when it is still snowing outside and for a "reasonable" period of time after the snow stops, you don't have to run outside to shovel snow. What is "reasonable" is open to judicial interpretation.

So, lets say you have to leave your abode for a three day trip down to flightsafety for some sim time. The first day you are gone, the mother of all ice storms happens in your sleepy little town. Day two dawns cold and sunny-no more ice falling but the original ice is still there. On day three the UPS guy arrives with your new David Clarks (or Dick Clarks as my wife erroneously refers to them). He is striding up your walkway, box in hand, when his feet hit the ice and shoot out from underneath him. He slams to the ground on his back fracturing his L5-S1 vertebrae. So you think you are not liable? Think it is the UPS guys own fault, as he should be wearing crampons to deliver packages when the ice is 1/2 inch thick? Guess again. Mr. UPS truck driver, is going to have a slam dunk case against you, and your homeowners insurance is going to pay...either before any lawsuit is filed or after. And a fractured L5-S1 in an under 30 UPS guy is going to be worth upwards of 300K depending on the town where the case is. So yes, if you own property YOU are responsible for keeping it clear of ice and snow, at least according to the judges in my state.

Now back to the mother and daughter. It does raise my suspicions that the mother sent a letter claiming that she should have had that gutter fixed--that they knew it caused water to accumulate on the driveway. By writing this letter the mother just filled in the blanks on a necessary legal element of this case...Notice. That is, if there was no ice storm, the ice could have only been on the driveway because of a defective or negligent condition, and in order for the homeowner to be liable for this condition, they must have known about it (hence notice) or that a "reasonable person" should have known about this condition (what the law calls "constructive notice"). Of course the mother did not have to right a letter, she could have said as much at her deposition. My uneducated guess is that the daughter does not have any health insurance to pay for her treatment, and her mom's homeowner's insurance is refusing to pay her medical bills. Mom is probably upset with her homeowners insurance, and looking out for her daughter. A fractured ankle, if it required any hardware, could easily cost upward of 30K in medical bills. The daughter was probably getting collection letters from the hospital, stating that they were going to report this on her credit, and/or bring a suit against her for the unpaid bills. Probably told her she would never be able to buy a car or house in the future, as her credit is shot. In fear as to what to do, she call a lawyer who said, sue your mom.

I wonder how many of you guys have health insurance, and could pay for 50K in treatment and afford to not fly for 3 months if you fell and broke your leg? Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that the daughter is doing the right thing by suing her mom, or that I would do something similar if I found myself in the daugter's situtation. Heck I'm just guessing at these facts. But I am also trying to shed some light on this case, that you will never read about in a newspaper, or see on the tv. The press' reporting on the law and legal issues is no better than the reporting you see on aviation accidents. The stories are written for shock and entertainment value. Any facts which might make the story less exciting are omitted. And no I am not an attorney, nor have I played one on TV. But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Nothing written above should be taken as legal advice.