Frivolous lawsuit comes back to haunt plaintiff

[DrProc]

You confuse one liners for facts...Entertaining, but evidence of nothing.

You don't do sh%t for me pal, I've been self employed my whole adult life and I doubt you've done 1/10th the amount of business I have. I suggest you start working smarter and not harder then your bitterness might go down.

Lighten up Francis.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The problem in this case is not the woman.....the problem is the Freakin' Lawyers! If her lawyers had any decency (higly unlikely due to the profession) they'd cover the $41,000.

 

[Metro752]

Seems to me to be about time:



http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_4688139

Short version: Woman and husband go for Helicopter ride at airshow. Helicopter runs out of gas and crashes. Woman is injured, husband is killed. Woman sues pilot and helicopter operator, wins but neither have any assets. Woman sues CIty that allowed the airshow to be held, loses on appeal. City's insurance company goes after woman for $41,000, she is horrified because she may have to sell her home.


From the article:



No, you're not losing your home as a result of the helicopter crash, you're losing your home as a result of suing someone who had nothing to do with the crash.


Maybe if this happened more often, folks would think twice before filing lawsuits against anyone and everyone with money when something bad happens.

She's all screwed up, her husband is dead, she probably cannot work, did she get any money at all from who operated the helicopter? It makes no sense. So she is upset, is trying to survive, sues the city, they sue back. Big deal, you're a tool for not understanding the human condition.

oh what now

I bust a bottle on some dudes head and he becomes retarded, ON YOUR property, during YOUR party, and you think you aren't going to be sued along with me? haha!

 

[AeroBoy]

Obviously the city saw fit to get aviation insurance for the event they sponsored. This means that the city believed it could be held liable if anything happened during the event, which something did (the helicopter crash). I also fail to see how many here can say it's a frivolous lawsuit if the original trial resulted in an award to the woman, and no one knows why AIG won the appeal. If we had all of the facts, then we could make an educated guess one way or another. None of the speculation posted above could be deemed an "educated guess."

The Flightinfo jury should be out until we get all of the facts...

 

[A Squared]

Lawfly,

Your point is well taken that "frivolous" has a specific meaning and is probably not applicable here.


gsrcrsx68,

GIven that frivolous is probably not the correct term, how about "unreasonable"? Look, you keep yapping about how we don't know the facts, so we must accept the the judge did and is correct (which ignores the fact that he was overturned) OK, lets look at the facts: What is the City's "negligence" ??? It was not, as has been suggested, fuel contamination. Nothing of the sort. The helicopter had about a pint of fuel in each tank (the fuel system remained completely intact and there was no spillage) The pilot failed to check the fuel level and ran it out of gas. Period. Even the plantiffs attorney doesn't try to dispute that. The City's Negligence? The city (according to the lawsuit) didn't monitor the operator, who didn't monitor the pilot to make sure the pilot was making sure that there was enough fuel. That's it in a nutshell. The plantiff tried to make the city liable for the pilots negligence by a 3 step connection. The city owes the poor , god loving victim who also loves her little dog, "Niki", $6 million of the taxpayer's money because the city did not have somone personally standing over the shoulder of the pilot, asking him if he had dipped tanks and if he had enough fuel. Sorry, that's one of the very basic PIC responsibilities , making sure you have fuel. Maybe in your world, you aren't responsible for making sure you have sufficient fuel when you fly, the rest of us grasp the concept that the PIC is responsible for making sure there is fuel in the tanks.

WHat we have is not a case of suing the person who caused the crash, this is pretty clearly a case of suing an uninvolved entity, merely because they have assets, by making up some ridiculous, far-fetched crap and hoping that it sticks.

Maybe if this happens a couple of times attornies' professional obligations will include saying, "ok, we could sue this person, but they really aren't responsible and you have a weak case, and if you lose, you might be responsible for thier legal costs, and those costs might be in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Are you sure you want to proceed with filing a lawsuit against *everyone* no matter how far removed from the actual incident?"

 

[gsrcrsx68]

WHat we have is not a case of suing the person who caused the crash, this is pretty clearly a case of suing an uninvolved entity, merely because they have assets, by making up some ridiculous, far-fetched crap and hoping that it sticks.

Well, this is exactly where you are wrong. The City was involved, we don't know to what extent.

Certainly, allowing an unquailified or underqualified operator to carry passengers at an event the City promoted and/or made money from is a problem (if that is what occurred).

If the City was allowing underinsured operations, that was a problem.

Would you be James Brady? Would you be pissed if it happened to you?

 

[Darkhlmt]

Can't we all just be friends?

After reading through this entire thread, which I did laugh at some of the posts, I noted a couple different things.

First, yes the fact that we in America have the right to sue anyone for any reason is a good thing. But, it is also a bad thing. Lawfly makes a good point. Before we get into big post battles on here, perhaps someone should locate the court transcripts. Then read through the scripts with a lawyer and then come back and have this argument.

There is no doubt in my mind that the woman, who's going through some pretty crappy stuff, is trying to get more money. If you can't live off of 6 million you have issues. But, I believe that blame should be placed where it is due.

Last thing, let’s not forget how the news media tends to report partial truths. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard the media state one thing when in fact the complete opposite is the truth. I guess what I’m saying is, don’t just take the article at face value. The writer of the article may not have all the facts which means we are getting even less.

That’s my ½ cent worth. Enjoy.

 

[A Squared]

Before we get into big post battles on here, perhaps someone should locate the court transcripts.

Actually, I have read the court transcripts. My description in my previous post of how the plantiff attemptted to show negligence on the part of the city is based on the the actual court decision from the appeal.

Last thing, let’s not forget how the news media tends to report partial truths. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard the media state one thing when in fact the complete opposite is the truth. I guess what I’m saying is, don’t just take the article at face value. The writer of the article may not have all the facts which means we are getting even less.

Agreed, anyone reading the crap about loving her little dog and reading the bible should be able to tell that the writer is far more interested in presenting an irrational emotional appeal than in reporting the facts. That is precisely why I did go and get the court transcripts from the appeal (Trial court decisions usually aren't avaialble on the web) and why I *did* read the NTSB report, and base my position on the actual facts.

Well, this is exactly where you are wrong. The City was involved, we don't know to what extent.

No, wrong again pal. We *do* know the extent to which the City was involved. I have read the court report. I know the tenuous connection the plantiff's attorney attempted to fabricate. Like I said in my previous post. the city's involvement was limited to owening the airport, and selling the fuel which went into the operators mobile tank, which was were the pilot should have fuelled the helicpter ... only he didn't

Certainly, allowing an unquailified or underqualified operator to carry passengers at an event the City promoted and/or made money from is a problem (if that is what occurred).

There is absolutely no indication in the court record that the City either made money from or promoted the event You're just pulling things out of your ass here. Why don't you take your own advice and read what actually happened and check back on frequency when you're not speaking from a position of massive ignorance?????

Would you be James Brady? Would you be pissed if it happened to you?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If I got shot, no I wouldn't sue the gun manufacturer, like the Bradys did, if that's what you're trying to suggest. Nor would I sue the city, if I were the crash survivor in this case.

You never did answer my hypothetical scenario. Do you think that you as the airstrip owner should be sued because someone else, in somone elses airplane killed a passenger by flying recklessly? Or is it different when it's *your" money that someone is trying to get thier greedy hands on?

 

[gsrcrsx68]

A Squared ole' buddy,

First I want to emphasize my original point: You spoke without knowing, you held this up as a lesson about frivolous lawsuits, again with no facts. Now you claim to have read the transcript(which I accept)...doing that post facto doesn't change my original point.

I contacted the author of the article and this is a quote from him:
"wings for charity, inc. which organized the whole event was found
liable by the trial court and b/c of that, the city was vicariously
responsible, said the judge."

Now that is not assigning PIC responsibilities to the City, sorry dude, I guess you missed that in the court transcript.

If you read any of what I said I never claimed to know the facts, unlike your assertions.

I don't want to expand in to hypotheticals, I'm already tired of this thread.

James Brady, gun lover turned gun control poster child because of how it affected him personally, like so many people when they are personally affected by something.

Lastly, anybody that thinks this cost will evaporate and society will benefit just doesn't get it. Now you will have one more person, mostly disabled, probably still needed medical services costing all of us.

How bout a truce and we fight about something else, some other time. And of course, please, have the last word.

 

[PDH]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA95FA239&rpt=fi

Here is another example of a case in which I became entwined. The pilot lands, can't shutoff with mixture, so he uses the fuel selector. He asks if a mechanic is available to look at the aircraft. Mechanic states that there is a problem with his mixture control cable and it would be advisable to leave the plane there and work on it the next day. Pilot rejects the offer and manually adjust the mixture control under the cowling. The mechanic advises him again of his predicament and pilot states that he has to get home tonite. He stated that the problem had happened before and a manual adjustment would suffice for the short flight. The mechanic again stated that it was a very poor decision to leave with the problem. 15 minutes later, the pilot is dead.

The widow sued the FBO, the mechanic, Beech, and Continental Engines. I was there. I heard the mechanic warn the pilot thrice. The jury (FBO case) treated the case as if it were a drunk driver. If the pilot could not make a rational decision, then his progress should somehow have been impeded. FBO paid out the a$$.