FO of Ebersol crash is suing

[timeoff]

He is blaming inadequate training manuals not addressing icing thoroughly?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/15022491.htm

Copilot sues over Ebersol plane crash

Associated Press

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - The copilot of the airplane that crashed in 2004, killing the youngest son of NBC Sports executive Dick Ebersol and two others, has filed a negligence lawsuit against the aircraft's maker, owner and charter company.
Eric Sloan Wicksell of Daytona Beach claims in the lawsuit that the plane was defective because operating and training manuals didn't disclose that it was highly susceptible to icing.
The National Transportation Safety Board concluded in May that the pilot's failure to carefully examine the wings for icing probably caused the crash.
The twin-engine Canadair crashed Nov. 28, 2004, as it was taking off from Montrose, Colo., killing 14-year-old Teddy Ebersol, pilot Luis Polanco-Espaillat and flight attendant Warren Richardson III.
Wicksell was injured, as were Dick Ebersol and another son, Charlie Ebersol.
The lawsuit, filed earlier this month in Broward County, seeks unspecified damages. Defendants include Montreal-based aircraft maker Bombardier Corp. and Hop-A-Jet Inc., a Fort Lauderdale-based charter service that owned the airplane.
Representatives of the companies did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday.

 

[dhc8fo]

Another money-grubbing retard trying to make a buck off of his own f-ups. What a shame. I hope he gets the book thrown at him somehow. If I knew who he was and where he lived, I would throw the book myself! :angryfire



ooooo....thanks FAA, now I do know where he lives. Maybe a nice letter thanking him for trying to stain GA pilots is in order.

 

[MJG]

This is just sad. So when I screw up and kill a bunch of people, if I'm lucky enough to live through the ordeal, I can get a good lawyer and find someone to sue, because it most certainly won't be my fault.

Might as well sue every instructor this pilot ever had, they should have warned him about the dangers of icing on a wing. What were they thinking??

 

[FlaZoomie]

Lawyers......

 

[Petrov]

Im gonna sue McDonalds they made me fat because they sold me food!!!

 

[SPilot]

If this ever goes to court, I'd like to see how this guy is going to convince the jury that it somehow isnt part of every pilots education, even in Daytona Beach Florida, that icing can happen where there is moisture in any form.
Questions about icing are asked on his written exams, and it is discussed in detail in every book and oral guide going from private to ATP. I'm sure FAA also have records of the specific questions from his written, so they can show that at some point in his training, he correctly identified that icing can happen on any aircraft.

The next lawsuit could be a student pilot suing Cessna for not telling him in the POH that the airplane will stall and crash if he reduce the airspeed 50ft above the runway.

Edit: oh, and this guy came from Embry Riddle, FL.

 

[100LL... Again!]

This person is a disgrace to the profession.

 

[Groundpounder]

Im gonna sue McDonalds they made me fat because they sold me food!!!

You wouldn't be the first person to do that.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Lawyers......

Pilots....

 

[sky37d]

We now have two threads on this subject.
Maybe the moderators can combine them.

One thing I don't understand, however, is how can he expect to win, how can he say, Oh everyone else is at fault, and it's not my fault we didn't check the wing for frost or ice before taking off.

I think this is a no win lawsuit, on his part. It also opens him up for further suits, naming him, based on his testimony. He should have thought this through a lot more than he did.

 

[FN FAL]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-wi-surprisevisit-law,1,4921429.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Surprise visit ends with lawsuit between daughter, mother
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer

July 12, 2006, 5:17 PM CDT

MADISON, Wis. -- Happy birthday, Mom. I'll see you in court.

An Illinois woman is suing her Wisconsin parents for negligence, claiming a surprise birthday visit to her mother in January 2005 left the woman with a broken ankle after a fall on her parents' icy driveway.

A federal judge has refused to throw out the lawsuit, setting up a potential mother-daughter courtroom showdown at a trial scheduled for November.

The daughter, Carriel Louah, 25, is brandishing an apology letter from her mom as the smoking gun in her lawsuit seeking damages for medical bills and lost wages.

In the letter, dated months after the fall, Wendi Reichling wrote that she and her husband "should have fixed that dang (gutter) years ago. We have learned we have to take better care of our sidewalks."

On Jan. 14, 2005, Louah, of Rockford, Ill. traveled to Darlington, Wis. to surprise her mother on her birthday, which she was celebrating at a local tavern. Louah spent the night at the home of her mother and stepfather.

The next morning she slipped on their driveway, breaking her left ankle and injuring her foot and leg, according to court records.

She filed suit earlier this year, arguing that her parents should be held liable for damages for maintaining "an unnatural accumulation of ice" on their driveway. She alleges her parents' gutter was defective and they should pay her more than $75,000 in damages.

Her parents responded that she can't prove their driveway was icy at the time or that their drainage system was faulty.

In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Shabaz refused to dismiss the lawsuit. He said a jury should decide whether "the allegedly defective condition allowed water to accumulate and later freeze on defendants' driveway which caused plaintiff to slip and fall."

:nuts:

 

[Big Duke Six]

It sounds like this guy found the same lawyer who once believed that since the airplane was still connected to the tug, the pilots were not yet in control of the aircraft.

 

[VNugget]

Mother-daughter icy sidewalk lawsuit

Well now I've seen and heard everything.

No, scratch that. I probably haven't.

 

[ultrarunner]

What I find amazing is the CPT had something like 10,000 hours of flight experience, a fair amount of it in jets and NO WINTER OPERATIONS EXPERIENCE.

Where the heck was this idiot flying for all that time that he never took a jet up north in the winter?

Sounds bizarre.

But then again, with no winter experience, I guess he didn't know what that stuff was sticking to the wings. OK, I guess it makes sense now.

 

[FN FAL]

Well now I've seen and heard everything.

No, scratch that. I probably haven't.

Have you seen or heard a guy eating his own head? Then you haven't seen or heard everything.

 

[FN FAL]

What I find amazing is the CPT had something like 10,000 hours of flight experience, a fair amount of it in jets and NO WINTER OPERATIONS EXPERIENCE.

I hate to be presumptious, but this Luis Polanco-Espaillat guy may have flown in a bunch of warm climate.

 

[Learsforsale]

Edit: oh, and this guy came from Embry Riddle, FL.

He spent most of his college career at DBCC then he went to Riddle for ONE semester. Everyone knows that we covered icing in the second semester.

 

[i'mbatman]

:nuts:

If this is for real, it sounds like a con job to me. Mom and daughter in on it together to win money. Insurance fraud?

 

[FN FAL]

If this is for real, it sounds like a con job to me. Mom and daughter in on it together to win money. Insurance fraud?

In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Shabaz refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

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.

 

[SSDD]

They'll find 12 morons with a 6th grade education who have been raised with the victim mentality. And they'll ask themselves, "wow, you mean to tell us that this big bad company never told the pilots they had to de-ice the the wings? Well, I don't care who you are that's negligent right there, how are the pilots suppossed to know, if somebody doesn't tell them?" $200 MILLION!

 

[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.