Travis Barker Blames Pilots, Equipment for Plane Crash

[LJ45]

he will get millions!!! for the pain of burns, all the surgery's required to correct the skin and permanent scarring and pain. If there ever was an open and shut case this is one.
If you think it will settle in a couple of weeks you are kidding yourself. The lawyers will drag it out right before trial to rack up fees and continue the constant negotiation between parties.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Ford Pinto

We should adopt laws from other countries regarding accidental death. $500 maximum award per person, like they have in some Indonesian countries.

This comment reminds me of the Ford Pinto from years ago. Their insurance actuaries calculated that it would be cheaper (more profitable) to let people die, sue and pay out than announce a recall to retrofit the vehicle with an $11 part. Yep. $11 dollars. Much cheaper to have passengers perish due to a minor oversight and sue than it was to replace this part. The actuaries figured that the likelihood of a specific type crash (rear end - fuel bladder too close to the bumper) where the occupants were trapped and perished was less expensive than preventing imminent death due to their own design flaws.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

Through early production of the model, it became a focus of a major scandal when it was alleged that the car's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear-end collision which sometimes resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle's lack of a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, meant that in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcing) made the car a potential deathtrap.

Ford was aware of this design flaw but allegedly refused to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. Mother Jones magazine obtained the cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 ($57 today, allowing for inflation) repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits, in what became known as the Ford Pinto memo.[4][5] The characterization of Ford's design decision as gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to major lawsuits, criminal charges, and a costly recall of all affected Pintos. While Ford was acquitted of criminal charges, it lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing "the barbecue that seats four."[6] Nevertheless, as a result of this identified problem, Ford initiated a recall which provided a dealer installable "safety kit" that installed some plastic protective material over the offending sharp objects, negating the risk of tank puncture."[7]

 

[Fly91]

This comment reminds me of the Ford Pinto from years ago. Their insurance actuaries calculated that it would be cheaper (more profitable) to let people die, sue and pay out than announce a recall to retrofit the vehicle with an $11 part. Yep. $11 dollars. Much cheaper to have passengers perish due to a minor oversight and sue than it was to replace this part. The actuaries figured that the likelihood of a specific type crash (rear end - fuel bladder too close to the bumper) where the occupants were trapped and perished was less expensive than preventing imminent death due to their own design flaws.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

That is a design flaw and gross negligence, AGAIN, on the part of HUMANS by NOT recalling the car.

They are responsible for the Pinto problem.

But to say the Lear has a design flaw is pretty stupid for anyone with half a brain to say. There's no way they will prove a design flaw in that 50 year old landing gear system.

 

[Fly91]

he will get millions!!! for the pain of burns, all the surgery's required to correct the skin and permanent scarring and pain. If there ever was an open and shut case this is one.
If you think it will settle in a couple of weeks you are kidding yourself. The lawyers will drag it out right before trial to rack up fees and continue the constant negotiation between parties.

Thats what I'm thinking....millions!!! Many settlements have happened in 2-3 weeks after final reports of accidents come out, if the settlement offers are big enough or fair enough from the insurance companies, and excepted by the plaintiffs, they're done.

But not from GY or Bombardier, at least I sure as hell hope not.

 

[LJ45]

If I had to guess the lawyers will say...

1. operator liable for not maintain and inspecting tires properly (contributing factor in accident) I am sure Goodyear will get some of this blame due to the deep pockets.

2. Bombardier and Pratt Whitney liable for a system which can allow forward thrust when the pilots are trying to use the piggybacks and the TR self stow. ( contributing factor in another Lear 60 landing accident, changes made but seems to have allowed for the same situation)

3. operator liable for inexperience captain which did recognize condition stated in # 2 and aborted too late.

JMHO

 

[Amish RakeFight]

That is a design flaw and gross negligence, AGAIN, on the part of HUMANS by NOT recalling the car.

They are responsible for the Pinto problem.

But to say the Lear has a design flaw is pretty stupid for anyone with half a brain to say. There's no way they will prove a design flaw in that 50 year old landing gear system.

I'm not saying that there's a design flaw. Just remarking on your $500 assessment of human life. Agreeably, one has to draw the line on human compensation, but $500? Reminded me of the Pinto actuaries.

 

[b707guy]

This comment reminds me of the Ford Pinto from years ago.

And a great scene from the movie "Top Secret" involving use of an exploding Pinto to escape the bad guys.

Apparently the litigation (or the loss of face in the industry...) resulted in some improvements for the last generation of Pintos. I got rear-ended while sitting at a red light in a 1980 Pinto wagon delivery car for the pharmacy where I worked at the time. I hit the car in front of me, and he hit the truck in front of him. The car that hit me, an early '70s Chevelle, hit the bumper first, bounced up and tore into the car above the bumper. You could tell where it hit the bumper, but it did it's job! The car was practically new, so it wasn't totaled, but it was out of commission for a few weeks for repair.

Don't think that history will help Lear or Goodyear in this case, though.

 

[Fly91]

If I had to guess the lawyers will say...

1. operator liable for not maintain and inspecting tires properly (contributing factor in accident) I am sure Goodyear will get some of this blame due to the deep pockets.

2. Bombardier and Pratt Whitney liable for a system which can allow forward thrust when the pilots are trying to use the piggybacks and the TR self stow. ( contributing factor in another Lear 60 landing accident, changes made but seems to have allowed for the same situation)

3. operator liable for inexperience captain which did recognize condition stated in # 2 and aborted too late.

JMHO

I agree.

But for #1 above, its going to be impossible to prove the crew DID NOT properly inspect/pre-flight the plane and its tires prior to flight. A piece of debris on the runway could have caused the tire to blow. If I was a juror, I would need 100% proof that the tires were defective to award them a dime from GY. I would also need 100% proof that the crew DID NOT visually inspect the tires, but if we had that proof it goes to more pilot error, not a GY issue. All thats required from an operator to maintain and inspect tires is to buy them, bolt them on, and have the pilot(s) visually look at them prior to each flight. Until the FAA requires x-ray inspection of aircraft tires before each flight, visual walk-arounds and making sure the tire is not flat before flight is proper.

As for #2, they should hit Travis with at least an 85% "assumption of risk" for getting on a plane to fly it into the air. So whatever the award might be from Bombardier, he gets 15% only. Anyone that boards a plane knows they can die minutes later. And any fool that knows just a little bit about planes, also knows that there can be many improvements for safety to every plane out there. Economics and the quest for profits keeps those improvements from happening.

#3, 100% liability there, no way around it.

 

[SansPlane]

In a case like this, no defendant gets out for free if the plaintiffs attorneys are doing their jobs. Additionally I would argue that if the case settles to far ahead of the court date, they are not doing their job. If the case settles while they are picking a jury, all the better. Of course this is simplistic but I am sure you get the idea.

 

[av8orboy]

What a loser...and the lawyer too.