Warbird Information Exchange

Mark, no, the issue was much more recent and wasn't for Lycoming itself, it was a 3rd party supplier and it was within the last couple of years. There was no judgement against them, they had to stop manufacturing because they were just listed, not because they were actually found liable or ruled against in any specific ruling. Like you said, building one isn't necessarily rocket science, but the issue is that every time a plane crashes, even if the engine isn't clearly at fault, the engine manufacturer and its suppliers still get sued. I got the info from industry publications at the time, not the "general media" and I have attended several owners seminars about legalities of ownership and stuff like that which covers the issues with aircraft liability insurance and why costs keep rising. Yes, the guys presenting these are industry lawyers for the most part, but I think it's in their best interest to be truthful about why costs are rising to keep those whom have a vested interest in aviation to understand why it costs $75 for a bolt that you can get an almost identical one of at Home Depot for $5.

Let me make an example - (Karen, please don't kill me) - When a Cessna 337 went down a few years ago due to a wing failure (obvious cause, they found the wing fully separated almost a mile away) everyone who had a part on that airplane was sued by the family of the victims for "wrongful death". Now, the wing OBVIOUSLY came off. Thus, a righteous (in the legal sense) lawsuit would include only the parties responsible for the manufacture of the wing and its parts - in this case Cessna and whomever supplies any subassemblies or fasteners used. However, the lawsuit went through with everyone still attached, including the Continental and its suppliers (engines), BF Goodrich (who's tires were on the plane), Bendix & King (who's avionics were on the plane), and several others. Unfortunately in aviation, it's not out of the exception for this to be allowed and why I hate it because it causes everyone's costs for flying to go up because every time a plane crashes, everyone is sued, regardless of the merit for the case and what actually happened.

Look, I don't dispute the rights of the estate to go after someone if they are liable or responsible, but the problem is that there seems to not be an "act of God" clause anymore when it comes to civil lawsuits that says, look, we understand you lost your family member, but it was a one in a billion chance and it happened. Even more importantly to that - [b]the NTSB investigation isn't done yet[b/], so why is someone filing a lawsuit without any legal basis to do so? There is no legally admissible evidence yet on record that even determines for sure what happened, so how can anyone be sure there was any negligence, or sure enough to be able to file a lawsuit? I could understand lawsuits being filed in the AF447 accident for example because there's official documentation that casts enough doubt on Air France and Airbus to do so, but in Reno, all we have is that the plane crashed and that's it (literally).

Should there be such a clause? Is it enough to just say "Oh well, it happened and that's a real shame. Now just get on with life."

Just curious, is all.

Cheers,
Matt

_________________
Matt Austin - playing with warbirds since the early 80s.

See my Lee-Enfield videos at - http://www.youtube.com/user/Jollygreenslugg

Matt,

Last I checked, there still was one, it's called merit. A case is supposed to have merit in order to be heard in court. Whether a case has merit is supposed to be quickly determined and then the case either dismissed or allowed to proceed based on that merit. Unfortunately, all too often these days, it seems that cases without merit are allowed to proceed to trial, and there are too many cases that are brought to trial due to the shopping of cases we have talked about before. Some of it is due to less-than-honest attorneys shopping the case and filing in jurisdictions that have very tenuous connections to the case at best, but I think that's overblown to some extent as there's laws against doing that.

Look, I feel for these families in particular and for those involved in honest wrongful death or injury scenarios, but too often I feel the net is cast way too wide and all it does is drive up costs for everyone else while too often no one really gets anything back. I also think that too often people act too quickly. What happens if this case is found to be without merit or is delayed pending the final NTSB report (which could take years)? The plaintiffs could loose even more because they jumped the gun and end up on the hook for attorney and court fees. How is the attorney in this case "protecting his client" by putting them at risk of loosing everything if they don't win? Too often in aviation, it seems that there is a lot of this going on that Attorney's see what could be a massive payday and then put their clients in a potentially catastrophic situation by casting their net so wide without any real proof beyond their own tenuous speculation that there might be some liability somewhere, somehow for that guy who supplied bolts to secure the landing gear onto the airplane that crashed because the engine blew up.

Oh yeah, and in insurance there is definitely an "Act of God" clause, usually called the "No Fault" clause/coverage. Usually it's enacted whenever fault is equally shared or it's determined that everyone involved did what they should have reasonably done and an accident was unavoidable. In that case everyone pays for their own damage and yeah, you end up just having to move on with life. I don't see why that shouldn't also apply in court. It sounds harsh, but then again, life's harsh, doesn't mean we shouldn't be empathetic to someone, just that there are times when it shouldn't mean that one person or group should be punished for something they couldn't have forseen or avoided.

CAPFlyer … a quick response to some things you brought up. I do recall the carb case you are talking about, can’t think of it either…. For the record I was a lawyer for 17 years, never did this kind of work but things similar.

On the $75 bolt that is $5 at Home Depot (which isn’t a great example since HD doesn’t sell AN hardware, but some HD stuff still ends up on airplanes..), bear in mind that sometimes the companies do it to themselves. The link I posted about the crash. They offered $75k for settlement (for 4 dead people) which was low, then they DIDN’T DISCLOSE RECORDS that the plaintiff asked for in discovery and got caught. Let me tell you this, you don’t catch them all the time and its rare to do so, but the defense hides stuff a lot. This cost Lycoming $64Million. That is probably more money than Lycoming made in profit as a division in the last 20 years. They did it to themselves. THEY WILL GO OUT AND SAY SOME GREEDY LAWYER BEAT THEM OUT OF IT SO NOW ENGINE PRICES HAVE TO GO UP, and that gets on the web and everyone believes it.

For the wing off on the 337. Suing the tire and avionics company is wrong (ask for dismissal under Rule 12B6) and in the real world (not the internet world), I’d like to see the complaint. I ordered a copy of the “Leeward” case up to see what they are alleging. I’ll bet money that tires and radios were NOT in it and if they were, they were out pretty quick. For the plaintiff to TRY to pursue a baseless claim like that in a case that otherwise has merit SIMPLY MAKES HIM LOOK BAD IN THE EYES OF THE COURT… You don’t do that. For all the web browsing people in America think, JUDGES ARE NOT STUPID AND DON’T GIVE AWAY EVERYTHING. They are actually people and usually have a certain tolerance for BS. (many dish it out a lot better than they take it too)….. Another side of that is that the tire and radio guys may well have WANTED to stay in the case to “protect their client’s interests” and manages to convince their clients that they should pay them to stay in there. I’ve seen that happen a lot in the coal industry and the lawyers are simply ripping their clients off. Of course the company has to justify it and does so by telling the world they were stuck in the case, nobody is going to check.

ACT OF GOD is a concept that doesn’t apply in tort law. Tort law considers THINGS IN HUMAN CONTROL (design and operation of an airplane)….. AOG is for events outside of human control (hurricane or tornado). If the airport at Stead was flattened by 100MPH winds on Friday night and hangars blown over, aircraft destroyed, RARA could have cancelled the races on the weekend with NO REFUNDS (which would make people unhappy, but may have been legal. If during that storm, you were running to shelter in a hangar and were hit and killed by a golf cart flying through the air, that’s an AOG. You are dead, too bad. Of course if gold cart owners were required to TIE CARTS DOWN, and this one wasn’t suddenly the golf cart owner is liable for your death. Same if you got inside the hangar designed for 120MPH winds and it was blown over and you died in 100MPH winds. Hangar designer may be liable for faulty design, builder may not have constructed it according to plans, hangar MFG may not have used the proper strength steel in it. Hence your estate (since you are now dead) can sue….

On filing suit now, lots of evidence. NTSB report I don’t think is admissible (see link in prior post), NTSB opinion is WORTHLESS IN COURT. Court takes a new look at the evidence and 6 people (12 in a criminal case) decide the facts to see who is liable and what the damages are. I filed a case once a few hours after an accident since it looked like my client was going to die. Here, cases are different if filed during life VS filing after death.
MERIT…. More like PRIMA FACIA…. Which means “on its face”, if it appear to make a case, then there is a case. If you get caught drunk driving at 0.12 when 0.08 is the limit, there is a prima facia cause of action to go forward. THAT CASE may be later thrown out when you show that the blood test was flawed and not reliable. But for now it goes forward.

Next, (while you don’t need it) the NTSB report could take 5 years to come out. You have 2 years to file a tort case (generally). So you need to proceed with it. Plaintiff isn’t on the hook for anything. Filing and service fees on this case were about $600 total, I’m sure the lawyer will pay that. Assuming it is totally dismissed and Plaintiff gets NOTHING, Plaintiff owes nothing to anyone (technically $600 to lawyer but he’s not going to ask for it). NOW in EUROPE (not USA) I understand loser pay’s winner’s attorney fees. That system has a chilling effect on cases that have merit not going to court. Cases that have merit are simply never filed because there is a chance the plaintiff may lose and have to pay the defendant’s costs (maybe $100k’s or millions). Not that way in the US, in reality our system is better. You get a fair shake at trying your case.

Allocation of fault is an issue in some states. You may be found partially at fault for an accident. In some states if you are more than 50% at fault you can recover NOTHING….. You are on a Motorcyle with no helmet. I hit you with my car and kill you. CLEARLY my fault accident happened since I was drunk. Your estate sues me. I show that if you had been wearing a helmet you would have survived without brain damage. I was assigned 30% fault and you 70% for no helmet. (jury does that). Judgment is $1Million. In some states I pay you 30% of $1mil ($300k) and in states with 50% gets you nothing, I would pay NOTHING.

Last a COMMENT on all those who say I’LL NEVER SUE……. Assuming you are head of household with young kids…. WHY? Why make your family suffer? Want them to lose the house, car, sports lessons, have your widow who never worked try to support them on minmum wage at WALMART? Kids can’t go to college, etc? Why would you do that? Next for the IDIOTS who post here “ILL NEVER SUE”, they are watching. Maybe you’ll get killed at airshow next year. Defense lawyers look at this site and your facebook page and see the “I DON’T WANT TO SUE” and will use it in court and maybe get the case dismissed that your family filed because your widow realized that she could pay the bills on $14,000 a year. So on stuff like that advice.. Keep your opinions to yourself.

I had a great time writing this, it may not make a lot of sense, but maybe you all will understand it some more.
Have a great day

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

While I am no fan of legal action without merit, I have to agree with MarkH. I have a limited amount of armchair attorney work for myself, without the benefit of having stayed at Holiday Inn Express. LAW does not have to make sense. You cannot read a contract without a legal dictionary and understand the implications.

Pirate Lex
http://www.BrewsterCorsair.com

_________________
An ego is no match for gravity.

I would argue that the US method of allowing a lawyer to take a case in exchange for a percentage of the settlement is a clear conflict of interest. Instead of being an dispassionate advocate for his client within the framework of the law, he has now become a party to the suit with a vested interest in increasing the final settlement to he greatest extent possible.
Lawyers should be required to set a fee for their services up front, be it prix fixe or straight hourly rate for work performed.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

without 'contingency' many people would be unable to afford good representation and the insurance companies and other well of shows would win by default.

The case for lawyers taking a cut for fees means that if they don't win they don't get paid. They are also, according to my attorney wife. more likely to 'cut a deal' to ensure that the case does settle...

I did a little looking around on lawyers and "lawyering" this morning. Below is the national association site for the trail lawyers. It used to be called the Association for Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA). They opted to change the name because of bad publicity. It's now called the American Association for Justice (AAJ).

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/jus ... efault.htm

I don't want to get into trail lawyer bashing but at the end of the day....like many other professional occupations, outside of what I suspect is pro bono tax write-off work, it is a "for profit" profession. In this case under the primise of justice. I suppose everyone can draw their own conclusions. I've never had to walk in the shoes of someone who lost a loved one in an accident.

Shrike must have lost me somewhere…. I fail to see how taking a percentage of the end result is a “conflict of interest.” Myself and my client both have the same interest, obtaining a result that would compensate the plaintiff for his loss. No conflict.

Next, I don’t understand how being paid, has to do with being “impartial”, there is no impartial representation. If you understand some of the Canons of Ethics (which generally don’t show up on TV), you will find that attorneys have an obligation to both their client and the court system itself which means that they actually follow a strict set of rules. There is always a “vested interest” in the final result since you are supposed to be a zealous advocate for your client.

Lastly, setting a fixed fee or an hourly rate rarely works in a case like this from the plaintiff side. Most injured people can’t afford to pay an attorney up front. Most can’t afford to live 60 days without income. Ask yourself if you could? The vast majority of people have no clue about the costs of taking on a case like this. RARA’s insurers have to defend $100million. Think that they are going to let a nickel go without a fight? They can easily spend another $10million in lawyers.

The only way to get representation is to share the risk, which involves sharing the settlement.

CoastieJohn...."I've never had to walk in the shoes of someone who lost a loved one in an accident." NICE THOUGHT........

Last. There was a card outside the gate at the Leeward Memorial, that said "The greatest sport has the greatest price". I think everyone is going to see what the greatest price is. (assuming the settlements are not confidential which I'm sure they will be for a variety of reasons). For the Leeward family, my heart goes out to you. I know Jimmy wouldn't have intentially hurt anyone, let alone vaporized himself, but the family will pay the greatest price since not only did Jimmy die, but everything he worked in for his lifetime will be transfered to the people he injured and killed.

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

But it also makes them much more likely to use the scattergun approach and sue everyone possible in hopes of reaching settlements and adding to the bottom line whether truly justified or not.
I could also cite a recent case I was peripherally involved in where the plaintiff was "made whole" to less than the original non-tort offer of redress, but the settlement included a cash sum that was solely to give his (second) lawyer something to take home. His first lawyer BTW was his son who had just passed the bar and "that's why I paid for his law school"

I'm not against a lawyer getting paid for his honest efforts, but to make their payment solely contingent upon the size of the settlement is still, to me at least, a conflict of interests.

Of course the fact that lawyers write the laws in such a way that only lawyers can argue the laws against other lawyers in front of other lawyers makes it highly unlikely that the laws will change anytime soon. I can think of no other profession or industry that is allowed make it's own rules, interpret it's own rules and make rules preventing anyone but them from challenging their own rules

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

Did this case have any Merit? Why was this allowed to go forward?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung

_________________
45-47=-2

I'm not a lawyer nor have I stayed in a Holiday Inn, in years so any lawyer-ly attributes have worn off.
But I did take a graduate course in "Legal Issues in Computer Science"

Notwithstanding.....

there's another more practical reason to sue lots of people and that is the legal notion of "proximate chain". Say you can reasonably sue person A, and you'd LIKE to be able to sue person B because person B is loaded with cash. To connect person B to the issue, you may have to sue lots of people in between A and B in order to create a chain or connection, from A to B thereby making B able to be sued. You don't really care about the result of suing all those people in between - so long as you win - and you aren't really after their money (oftentimes they have none). But suing them allows you to sue person B - where the cash is.

Of course even though you aren't trying to be punitive with respect to the people in between A and B, you could still destroy their lives.

Why would I do that? Why would I make my family suffer? Because in some cases it is simply the right thing to do. Not the easy thing, not the fun thing, just the right thing. Being born in this country does not guarantee my kids get to go to college, have a house, a car, or even sports lessons. Often those things are lost because the head of household dies of a disease or in a natural disaster, etc. Where do you go to get those creature comforts you seem to think everyone deserves when there is nobody to blame? Nowhere. Your family suffers. It happens. You've got no guarantee in this life that you won't have to suffer. Quite the opposite really. Why make the other guy's family suffer even more when everybody took risks and you just happened to be among the ones that paid the price? Some time bad things JUST HAPPEN.



Guess I'm among the "idiots" now, I'm OK with that. I do appreciate the advice even if it does come off as a bit arrogant.



So, based on what I'm reading here, you've already decided that Jimmy is guilty. The fact that you are already so certain of the outcome tells me all I need to know about the state of the justice system in this country. For some reason I think it has very little to do with "justice".