Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Flipperk on November 01, 2011, 03:57:44 PM
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45121912/ns/us_news-life/
This is the first of many...but I came to the realization while reading that this family who filed the lawsuit is from where I currently live, Friendswood. Never thought this event would hit so close to home..
-
Well, we knew it was coming :(
-
"Some people say this was an accident," said Houston-based attorney Tony Buzbee, who filed the civil liability lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Sezen Altug, a physician and widow of dead spectator Craig Salerno, and their two children, ages 6 and 8. "But it seems to me the formula that they created made an accident inevitable."
It's such BS legal shotgun shooting, such a high number for only one person's loss, and that lawyer is naming everyone who had their hand or name ever on that plane as well as the organizers of the event. Talk about smurfy.
Well, we knew it was coming :(
Agreed, it was inevitable. :frown:
-
It's such BS legal shotgun shooting, such a high number for only one person's loss, and that lawyer is naming everyone who had their hand or name ever on that plane as well as the organizers of the event. Talk about smurfy.
really. and surely, assuming the plane/pilot complied with the event's requirements, they should only be able to sue the event organisers? :headscratch:
-
That's what liability insurance is for. One can only hope that the judge is smart enough to pull in every single person affected by the accident, and split the liability insurance cap evenly among them, and be done with it.
As for the victim's family suing the pilot's family... That's just stupid. I hope the family's lawyers can countersue to recover legal fees. I imagine I'd be pretty torqued if my Dad's vette threw a tire and he killed someone in a crash, and then that someone's family sued me. I'm pretty sure that if I suffered a single unrecoverable financial loss defending myself, I would spend considerable time and effort ensuring that whoever sued me suffered at least an equal financial loss of some sort.
-
Everybody wants to jump on the money wagon.
No one made the person go to the race.
-
Everybody wants to jump on the money wagon.
No one made the person go to the race.
And then some, the whole thing is really off-keel if you read the story, this is the first one yet it's already been clearly made that he was an aviation racing enthusiast, supporter, air show volunteer... and, the cherry - RACING PILOT HIMSELF.... *insert gufawed smiley*.
-
And then some, the whole thing is really off-keel if you read the story, this is the first one yet it's already been clearly made that he was an aviation racing enthusiast, supporter, air show volunteer... and, the cherry - RACING PILOT HIMSELF.... *insert gufawed smiley*.
I totally agree. Being that close to the sport he knew the risk before he walked out his front door to go.
-
I didn't know that bit, about him loving air racing. Was he actually ever a pilot?
Just a quick nickel's worth of thought, but isn't there something wrong with the guy's FAMILY being sued? They didn't control who went/didnt go. They weren't behind the yoke at the time, and chances are that they couldn't have stopped the crash, even if they were. What's worse is that 3 irreplaceable things have been lost-- 2 lives, and a vintage warbird. So, all 3 parties lose equally in this, but 1 of them gets out without losing money ON TOP of the death... They couldn't control his death, and are not having to pay. On the other hand, something happened that made this (supposedly highly-skilled) pilot lose control of the plane, lose his life, which nobody could ever have controlled, but his FAMILY, who may not have even been present at the race, is having to pay some huge fee to "compensate" for the death of someone else's loved one? I'm so confused.
-
I mean, I get that they are deeply grieved by it, but really? So is the Pilot's family. I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt they. Would want to be sued after a family member's death...
-
That's what liability insurance is for.
On a personal level, yes. Globally, it just means more money to the insurance companies due to covering law suits that should never have passed. It sounds like the insurance companies will pay more, but in practice this is already factored into the insurance premium, so lots of stupid law suits is in the best interest of lawyers and insurance companies. Judges usually were lawyers before, so this system looks very natural to them and they will not put a stop to it by preventing the cases from going to court.
-
He went from what looks like a slight turn coming out on the stretch at what 3Gs maybe? To somewhere around 10 (?) ... rolled over to ease the loading to try and regain control. But really, after a instant buildup of G forces being completely unprepared for it, what are your chances?
-
I didn't know that bit, about him loving air racing. Was he actually ever a pilot?
Just a quick nickel's worth of thought, but isn't there something wrong with the guy's FAMILY being sued?
The attorney is going after the family because they are now in control of all the monies, and businesses that were owned by Jimmy Leeward. Im assuming that he was quite a wealthy man, and since he is not able to be named in the suit, they are going after the people in control of his money.
-
The attorney is going after the family because they are now in control of all the monies, and businesses that were owned by Jimmy Leeward. Im assuming that he was quite a wealthy man, and since he is not able to be named in the suit, they are going after the people in control of his money.
The attorney is going after his "estate".
Not saying it's right but the injured and families of the dead probably can make a legitimate case.
-
Clearly it's quite a cynical attempt to extract money, not least on the part of the lawyer. But I would imagine everyone involved was insured appropriately and if they had any sense have organised their affairs in order to distance themselves from any court case. It's an absolute neccessity in these days of ambulance chasing lawyers and greedy families of victims.
The operation I work for has a complicated arrangement to ensure that any accident won't close it down. Effectively they have no assets making any lawsuit complicated.
Ironically a good lawyer, (surely an oxymoron :headscratch:) will sort it out for you!
-
It's about to get messy for the family. Been there done that. Lawsuits after a death aren't fun, not at all.
-
Clearly it's quite a cynical attempt to extract money, not least on the part of the lawyer. But I would imagine everyone involved was insured appropriately and if they had any sense have organised their affairs in order to distance themselves from any court case. It's an absolute neccessity in these days of ambulance chasing lawyers and greedy families of victims.
The operation I work for has a complicated arrangement to ensure that any accident won't close it down. Effectively they have no assets making any lawsuit complicated.
Ironically a good lawyer, (surely an oxymoron :headscratch:) will sort it out for you!
people died and other got injured, replacement for loss of income for survivors and family of the dead is not a cynical attempt to extract money. there's accidents that happen everyday and people get sued when they injured somebody else.
as for the second part that is wrong if you are not properly insured, as anybody that gets injured will be basically screwed.
semp
-
Clearly it's quite a cynical attempt to extract money, not least on the part of the lawyer. But I would imagine everyone involved was insured appropriately and if they had any sense have organised their affairs in order to distance themselves from any court case. It's an absolute neccessity in these days of ambulance chasing lawyers and greedy families of victims.
The operation I work for has a complicated arrangement to ensure that any accident won't close it down. Effectively they have no assets making any lawsuit complicated.
Ironically a good lawyer, (surely an oxymoron :headscratch:) will sort it out for you!
Sure everyone is most likely insured. That means we all pay for greedy.
-
When there's a chance of big money, people get greedy. It's not the same thing as being compensated. $25 million is cynical and greedy. No doubt the family is due compensation for their loss. No doubt they deserve compensation. But $25m?
They're not alone in this of course. The system encourages it. The result is reflected in all our insurance premiums. Because have no doubt it's ordinary people who pay for this in their insurance premiums.
Be assured guncrasher, there is proper insurance as such but might not stop the lawyers going after the company assets as well. This could and has put people out of business even if they win the case.
-
Why not just make the race fans sign a waver.
"If In the event that a 400 mph 60 year old aircraft comes down on my head, I "sign name here" hold no one but fate to be at fault for the loss of my life or family members."
-Sighs- so tragic all the way around.
:pray For all the one's involved.
-
Keep in mind that the lawyers started circling the accident scene before the last fragment hit the ground.
As already mentioned, the pilot's family are the heirs of his estate, hence the only ones that can be sued. They are also the recipients of his insurance policies and as such are another asset the lawyers want to tap to gain their 30% fees. Dead people seem to defy court orders to show up in court regularly.
Suing every one related to the plane is common. The lawyers want to make sure they can tap every pocket that is in any way related to the aircraft and it's funding. The more pockets tapped the larger the "reward" for the lawyer and his client(s).
The judge is not likely to have the say as to the cap of the award. He supervises the trial but it is the jury that sets the award both for losses and punitive damages. They are not limited to the amount of insurance carried by the plane owner and or maintenance facility. Keep in mind that not only the business can be sued but each of the employees separately can be hammered. The amount of the reward is not even limited to the sum total assets of the defendants either. The award can be any amount the jury wishes to name. The insurance companies are just limited to the amount of insurance carried by the defendant.
Law suits involving aviation are not limited to common sense and logic. Anyone even remotely familiar with the suit that bankrupted Piper knows this. A suit is only limited by the imagination of the plaintiff's lawyer. Aviation is a favorite target because "everyone knows" that people related to aircraft ownership and or maintenance are all rich greedy evil people hoarding money from the more deserving folks like the plaintiff's and their lawyer.
This kind of accident may have been inevitable in the course of racing. It was just a matter of time before something like this happened. Look for 2011 to be the last of the air races as insurers refuse to issue policies to anyone related to racing. The only other way to make it "safe" for spectators is to remove them completely from the race course area. They might be allowed to watch it via TV but I doubt there will be people inside the pit area or race course any more, if in fact there ever is another race.
Racers, the course owners and anyone involved in it may be required to have insurance in order to perform but there is no law REQUIRING insurance companies to write the policy. Anyone who has been an aircraft owner from the 80's through to mid 2000's knows how many insurers dropped out of aircraft insurance business. The awards are just too high to keep it given the risk vs income.
-
Why not just make the race fans sign a waver.
"If In the event that a 400 mph 60 year old aircraft comes down on my head, I "sign name here" hold no one but fate to be at fault for the loss of my life or family members."
-Sighs- so tragic all the way around.
:pray For all the one's involved.
You sign one of those as a participant in nearly every racing event. It's not worth the paper it is on, once lawyers become involved.
Shakespeare was right, "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
-
Keep in mind that the lawyers started circling the accident scene before the last fragment hit the ground.
As already mentioned, the pilot's family are the heirs of his estate, hence the only ones that can be sued. They are also the recipients of his insurance policies and as such are another asset the lawyers want to tap to gain their 30% fees. Dead people seem to defy court orders to show up in court regularly.
Suing every one related to the plane is common. The lawyers want to make sure they can tap every pocket that is in any way related to the aircraft and it's funding. The more pockets tapped the larger the "reward" for the lawyer and his client(s).
The judge is not likely to have the say as to the cap of the award. He supervises the trial but it is the jury that sets the award both for losses and punitive damages. They are not limited to the amount of insurance carried by the plane owner and or maintenance facility. Keep in mind that not only the business can be sued but each of the employees separately can be hammered. The amount of the reward is not even limited to the sum total assets of the defendants either. The award can be any amount the jury wishes to name. The insurance companies are just limited to the amount of insurance carried by the defendant.
Law suits involving aviation are not limited to common sense and logic. Anyone even remotely familiar with the suit that bankrupted Piper knows this. A suit is only limited by the imagination of the plaintiff's lawyer. Aviation is a favorite target because "everyone knows" that people related to aircraft ownership and or maintenance are all rich greedy evil people hoarding money from the more deserving folks like the plaintiff's and their lawyer.
This kind of accident may have been inevitable in the course of racing. It was just a matter of time before something like this happened. Look for 2011 to be the last of the air races as insurers refuse to issue policies to anyone related to racing. The only other way to make it "safe" for spectators is to remove them completely from the race course area. They might be allowed to watch it via TV but I doubt there will be people inside the pit area or race course any more, if in fact there ever is another race.
Racers, the course owners and anyone involved in it may be required to have insurance in order to perform but there is no law REQUIRING insurance companies to write the policy. Anyone who has been an aircraft owner from the 80's through to mid 2000's knows how many insurers dropped out of aircraft insurance business. The awards are just too high to keep it given the risk vs income.
That is almost true, however the judge can and has overruled juries in the past. The Judge has the ultimate power in the final decision, if the jury finds the defendant guilty, but the Judge feels as though the court does not find him guilty, he can and will overrule it.
That is why when the Jury reads their verdict, the Judge responds with "the Court also finds XXXX guilty/not guilty for XXXX"
-
A judge can rewrite a contract between you and another person and your still liable. I have seen it first hand. Not all judges are straight either... some are very crooked.
-
Why not just make the race fans sign a waver.
"If In the event that a 400 mph 60 year old aircraft comes down on my head, I "sign name here" hold no one but fate to be at fault for the loss of my life or family members."
-Sighs- so tragic all the way around.
:pray For all the one's involved.
If the people involved were negligent in their ways of operations in such a way that the accident could have been prevented...then the waiver is null and void...they better bring out the checkbook and start filling in zeros
-
The plaintiff's lawyer(s) probably do not even want to go to trial if possible.
-
If the people involved were negligent in their ways of operations in such a way that the accident could have been prevented
(thinking out loud here)
Negligence might be tough to prove, ( I'm in court alot for insurance claims) Something makes me think that the FAA was involved in the safety aspect of the placement of the seating at the show and certain requirements that they (the people running the show) must meet for the seating. (Ill be truthful, I'm not sure where i heard this, but for the life of me i remember hearing something of the sort.
Blacks Law dictionary defines Negligence as ......n. The failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same or similar situation. Conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. The quality or state of being negligent; lack of due diligence or care; omission of duty; habitual neglect; heedlessness. An act or instance of negligence or carelessness.
Not sure if they can be found negligent if they took all means reasonably necessary to protect people, coupled with the FAA requirements, no history of habitual neglect, and in following all the rules that were given to them (FAA), they did their due diligence.
All that said, a lawyer can make an argument that a zebra is purple if he wants. Ive seen it first hand. I once saw an attorney make an argument for his case citing the movie "Starman" with Jeff Bridges.......It was all I could do (and our corprate lawyer could do) to keep a straight face. The judge was looking at him like he had worms crawling out his ears.......LOL To this day i send our attorney a picture of the Starman movie poster anytime a new suit comes in.....begging him that he try the "Starman Defense" this time.
-
Keep in mind that the lawyers started circling the accident scene before the last fragment hit the ground.
As already mentioned, the pilot's family are the heirs of his estate, hence the only ones that can be sued. They are also the recipients of his insurance policies and as such are another asset the lawyers want to tap to gain their 30% fees. Dead people seem to defy court orders to show up in court regularly.
Suing every one related to the plane is common. The lawyers want to make sure they can tap every pocket that is in any way related to the aircraft and it's funding. The more pockets tapped the larger the "reward" for the lawyer and his client(s).
The judge is not likely to have the say as to the cap of the award. He supervises the trial but it is the jury that sets the award both for losses and punitive damages. They are not limited to the amount of insurance carried by the plane owner and or maintenance facility. Keep in mind that not only the business can be sued but each of the employees separately can be hammered. The amount of the reward is not even limited to the sum total assets of the defendants either. The award can be any amount the jury wishes to name. The insurance companies are just limited to the amount of insurance carried by the defendant.
Law suits involving aviation are not limited to common sense and logic. Anyone even remotely familiar with the suit that bankrupted Piper knows this. A suit is only limited by the imagination of the plaintiff's lawyer. Aviation is a favorite target because "everyone knows" that people related to aircraft ownership and or maintenance are all rich greedy evil people hoarding money from the more deserving folks like the plaintiff's and their lawyer.
This kind of accident may have been inevitable in the course of racing. It was just a matter of time before something like this happened. Look for 2011 to be the last of the air races as insurers refuse to issue policies to anyone related to racing. The only other way to make it "safe" for spectators is to remove them completely from the race course area. They might be allowed to watch it via TV but I doubt there will be people inside the pit area or race course any more, if in fact there ever is another race.
Racers, the course owners and anyone involved in it may be required to have insurance in order to perform but there is no law REQUIRING insurance companies to write the policy. Anyone who has been an aircraft owner from the 80's through to mid 2000's knows how many insurers dropped out of aircraft insurance business. The awards are just too high to keep it given the risk vs income.
Great post :aok
-
(thinking out loud here)
Negligence might be tough to prove, ( I'm in court alot for insurance claims) Something makes me think that the FAA was involved in the safety aspect of the placement of the seating at the show and certain requirements that they (the people running the show) must meet for the seating. (Ill be truthful, I'm not sure where i heard this, but for the life of me i remember hearing something of the sort.
Blacks Law dictionary defines Negligence as ......n. The failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same or similar situation. Conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. The quality or state of being negligent; lack of due diligence or care; omission of duty; habitual neglect; heedlessness. An act or instance of negligence or carelessness.
Not sure if they can be found negligent if they took all means reasonably necessary to protect people, coupled with the FAA requirements, no history of habitual neglect, and in following all the rules that were given to them (FAA), they did their due diligence.
All that said, a lawyer can make an argument that a zebra is purple if he wants. Ive seen it first hand. I once saw an attorney make an argument for his case citing the movie "Starman" with Jeff Bridges.......It was all I could do (and our corprate lawyer could do) to keep a straight face. The judge was looking at him like he had worms crawling out his ears.......LOL To this day i send our attorney a picture of the Starman movie poster anytime a new suit comes in.....begging him that he try the "Starman Defense" this time.
+1 on the post. He works for the insurance company that used to cover our 38s until almost going belly up for some odd reason.
-
That is almost true, however the judge can and has overruled juries in the past. The Judge has the ultimate power in the final decision, if the jury finds the defendant guilty, but the Judge feels as though the court does not find him guilty, he can and will overrule it.
That is why when the Jury reads their verdict, the Judge responds with "the Court also finds XXXX guilty/not guilty for XXXX"
Guilt or innocence is a criminal proceeding. That is quite different than a suit which is a civil trial. Don't mix them up as they are very different critters as are the penalties assessed to the defendant should they lose.
-
Guilt or innocence is a criminal proceeding. That is quite different than a suit which is a civil trial. Don't mix them up as they are very different critters as are the penalties assessed to the defendant should they lose.
I was just stating an example, even in civil suits the Judge has the final ruling, do not forget the Judge is in control of the court.