Outrageous

wms

billSquared
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Posts
2,052
Total Time
10500
Outrageous

When those who are at fault are in eternity, get the money where you can.
 

VNugget

suck squeeze bang blow
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Posts
809
Total Time
1700
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.
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
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.
 

TMMT

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Posts
21,654
Total Time
Alot
Flightinfo.com Rule #1 DON'T FEED DA BUG!!!
:eek:
 

stupidpilot

Registered Moron
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Posts
10,813
Total Time
Alot
I second that!
 

Simon Says

New Airbus Regional Jet
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Posts
1,036
Total Time
11000
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.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
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.
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
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.
 

Paradoxus

Sith Sorcerer
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
5,376
Total Time
Lv. 50
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.
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
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.
 

ePilot22

BuyTheTicket~TakeTheRide
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
903
Total Time
nfinit
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.

Your neck must be made from some type of steel reinforced concrete and your head an elastic ball of bone to support a brain as large as yours.

Or are you more like a large brain with little arms and legs. This should be your avatar








eP.
 

Paradoxus

Sith Sorcerer
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
5,376
Total Time
Lv. 50
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.

A gross oversimplification of the matter. Litigation, fundamentally so, is at this point in the history of dispute resolution decidedly not new under the sun, no challenge. Further, it is indeed a function of human progress that it exists. I rather think that issue is as irrelevant as it is evident.

What is rather unprecedented, however, is the very visible, very venomous culture/industry that has been built to take advantage of this process. To deny that the puerile pursuit of litigation for any and every possible offense taken by individuals (real or imagined, legitimate or frivolous, plaintiff-induced or not, beneficial to society or destructive, etc.) has become legion where it was not before is emphatically naive.

To wit:
Lawsuits levied against gun manufacturers for suicides and murder, fast food restaurants for boiling beverage accidents, aircraft producers for aircraft lost by anything but mechanical failure, automotive factories for reckless driving, city managers for street crime, police for subduing dangerous violators, pharma for the unknowable consequences of drugs, etc...etc....etc...

To look upon these abortions of justice and casually label those who question the direction taken by the modern litigation cartels as "whiners" and "naive" is to forfeit any and all intellectual honesty in the matter. The afore mentioned calls for suit are as categorically absurd as they are unprecedented. Yes, the legal system has offered a more "benevolent" alternative to the ancient methods of dispute resolution, but like the vast myriad of other enlightened institutions of modern civilization, it suffers from an epic level of abuse.

That is the undeniable truth of the matter. My libertarian alignment and sensibilities prohibit me in good faith from promoting any sort of government interference in the matter. Thus given, I blame only the failings of our culture itself for the gross distortions of what might be recognizable as justice and fair compensation.

Addendum:

You mentioned:

...in our own polite society

A catastrophic misconstruction of the factual reality of the situation. I wouldn't consider the legally-enforced razing of one's wealth, property, and often livelihood to be particularly "polite." Ranking in conjunction therewith, I'd judge the afore mentioned consequences befalling a rescue worker at the tentacles of a trial attorney representing a life saved to be unequivocally impolite.

These are best-case scenarios for the impetuous unrestraint the system of civil justice now "enjoys." Damage done to industry by as much, directly impacting the progression of society, is now incalculable. Polite?

You see, the destruction that one can levy without the usage of marshall force, that is to say, through the abuse of an institution, (also not new under the sun) is markedly significant, sometimes even eclipsing more intemperate methods.
 

RockyMnt1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
163
Total Time
2200
Thanks to the previous posters. My vocabulary has just doubled in size. I am also taking notes relating to sentence construction......Very informative.

Can we get a poetry thread going soon???
 

A Squared

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
Counter suits are nearly inevitable. One should always plan on it.


It's intersting to note that this *is* a countersuit. According to the article the helicopter operator and the owner sued Altman's estate first.
 
Top