Frivolous lawsuit comes back to haunt plaintiff

[gsrcrsx68]

Pdh,
Good example...made me laugh thinking about this time I watched this guy trying to take off in a plane that stalled 5 times on the way to the run up area...needed a jumpstart each time. That dude lived as far as I know, but talk about bad judgement.

 

[A Squared]

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.

No, your original point was that I am a "f'in a-hole" an enlightened point if there ever was one. Thank you so much for raising the quality of discourse to the exalted level of crude anatomical insults. That’s something of which your mother must be proud. Now if you go back and read what you wrote, you can see what you actually said. (that’s the wonderful thing about arguing on the Internet, what was actually said is there for all to read) What you actually did was accuse twice me of not reading the *article*. After I showed, by referring to my previous comments (that you missed) that I had indeed read the article, you then moved on to your "we don’t have all the facts" stage. Yeah, it was somewhere around that point that I did my research, so ?? What is your point? The thing that you are missing is that the official documents showed nothing substantially different that what I had originally inferred from the article: That the city did not in any way shape or form cause the helicopter to crash. (now, if research had showed that the city had sold a bunch of dirty water instead of avgas, I would have indeed been guilty of what you say. But that was not the case.

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."

Ahhh, yes, the author of the article, the guy who wrote all of that irrelevant crap about reading her bible and loving her little dog Niki. Sure, there’s a sterling source of reliable information. He didn’t happen to mention did he, that the appelae court found that "wings for charity" was *not* liable? Nahhh, I didn’t think so.

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

Actually, yes it is. The helicopter crashed because the pilot ran out of gas. Period. Yet the lawsuit attempted to hold the City liable because they failed to ensure that "Wings of Charity" ensured that "Tri Valley Helicopters" ensured that "Ainsworth" (the guy who actually suppled the helicopter and pilot) ensured that the pilot had enough fuel when he took off. So yes, ultimately, that is the crux, the essence. The City is being held liable for the PICs failure, a failure that they had nothing to do with. A different way of looking at is the only way they could have prevented this accident is if they had an city employee reviewing the pilot’s fuel calculations before every takeoff. If you know of some other way the city could have made absolutely sure that the helicopter didn’t run out of fuel, I’d certainly like to hear it.




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

Yeah, I’m not surprised, because to examine my hypothetical, you have to place yourself in the position the city and see how you like it, and you know that really, you don’t, and unless you’re willing to take the absurd position that you would *welcome* being sued in my hypothetical situation, you realize that you completely lose your argument. You see it’s really easy to be a proponent of "vicarious liability" right up to the point where you are being held "vicariously liable" for a death caused by someone else’s stupidity. When it’s your money, suddenly, "vicarious liability" isn’t quite so much fun anymore. That is obvious, so you make up the lame excuse that you are "tired", to dodge the point that the hypothetical situation drives home.

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.

Right, which is precisely why you dodge the hypothetical. Your a big fan of vicarious liability "Rah! Rah! let’s go, sue everyone, sis boom bah! File that complaint!!!!!" , right up until it’s you personally who’s defending against a lawsuit for something you didn’t do. Then you’re going to change your tune, you know that, I know that, everyone reading knows that ... so you refuse to consider the hypothetical because we all know where it’s going to lead.

 

[Metro752]

You cannot win an arguement with A to the Squared. He flies DC-6s, he is always right, he is a real man.

I bet I got more Citabria time than him though, unless he owns one!