Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Outrageous

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

wms

billSquared
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Posts
2,052
Outrageous

When those who are at fault are in eternity, get the money where you can.
 
Note the law firm involved. (I don't want to mentioned their name here) That's the same piece of scum that worked Walker vs. Segal in 2004. That's where a Bonanza pilot who was getting help from ATC for an unsafe gear indication was sued for $2 million because 2 other planes mid-aired while that was going on.
 
Outrageous? What exactly surprises you about this?

The widow is suing the people that killed her husband. Is this hard to understand?

Right or wrong is irrelevant. Court actions address economic issues, and this is now an economic issue, to be settled with economic judgements.

If a mishap occurs, nearly certainly a law suit will arise out of that event. Count on it. Predicate all your actions on how they may be interpreted after the fact by laymen on a jury, from what you say into a cockpit voice recorder to the way you drive in traffic. We're all subject to judicial review and legal scrutiny, and if someone is injured or a loss occurs, then you may be assured of it.
 
Flightinfo.com Rule #1 DON'T FEED DA BUG!!!
:eek:
 
I second that!
 
Outrageous? What exactly surprises you about this?

The widow is suing the people that killed her husband. Is this hard to understand?

Right or wrong is irrelevant. Court actions address economic issues, and this is now an economic issue, to be settled with economic judgements.

If a mishap occurs, nearly certainly a law suit will arise out of that event. Count on it. Predicate all your actions on how they may be interpreted after the fact by laymen on a jury, from what you say into a cockpit voice recorder to the way you drive in traffic. We're all subject to judicial review and legal scrutiny, and if someone is injured or a loss occurs, then you may be assured of it.

I agree with most of what you say, but "The widow is suing the people that killed her husband?" Well, he may of been the one to kill all those people in the helicopter and those folks should turn around and sue the estate of the widow.
 
deep pockets

I agree with most of what you say, but "The widow is suing the people that killed her husband?" Well, he may of been the one to kill all those people in the helicopter and those folks should turn around and sue the estate of the widow.
na her pockets are not deep enought. Justice can not be served unless there are deep pockets, I mena after all where would the money come from for those attorney fees.
 
Well, he may of been the one to kill all those people in the helicopter and those folks should turn around and sue the estate of the widow.

Counter suits are nearly inevitable. One should always plan on it.

Additionally, it's inevitable that many other parties are brought into these suits, from manufacturers to the company that sold the tickets, to the place that pumped the fuel. If this surprises anyone, surely they were born just yesterday.
 
Counter suits are nearly inevitable. One should always plan on it.

Additionally, it's inevitable that many other parties are brought into these suits, from manufacturers to the company that sold the tickets, to the place that pumped the fuel. If this surprises anyone, surely they were born just yesterday.

Perhaps the inevitability of litigation is not the instigating factor for this discussion. The negative reactions are likely fundamental disgust at the reflexive move to file suit against all parties involved, no matter how absurd or phantasmic the implied liability.

After all, toleration of offensive behavior, as well as the development of expectations for as much, fermented and established by an epoch of apathy, is tantamount to condoning it.

One could indeed be said to have been "born yesterday" if unaware that the venomous culture of litigation today did not exist in former times.
 
The "venemous culture of litigation" is not new, nor is anything else under the sun.

The wright brothers were locked in bitter dispute with Curtis Wright from the earliest days of powered flight, and even their own credit as the first in powered flight bought legitimacy through the Smithsonian only by means of threat of litigation, and extortion by the Wrights.

Litigation as we know it today, the civil transference of paper and funds upon supplication of a magistrate, is a far cry improvement over the ancient methods of settling minor disputes through maiming and bloodshed. Indeed I have lived in parts of the world where a simple traffic incident is likely to end in murder on site. To whine over tort (or the reform thereof) in our own polite society, or to label it as something new, is indeed naive, and nothing short of inaccurate.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top