Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Do attorneys make more money as judges, or in private practice?That could depend on whether their position is elected or appointed.
Do attorneys make more money as judges, or in private practice?That could depend on whether their position is elected or appointed.
Don't judges make the same money regardless of how they rule?
Do truck drivers endeavor to make less income than possible? What about dentists? Plumbers? Pilots?
I was just puzzled by the inclusion of judges on the list of people whose work might be affected by financial incentives.Sure they do, but other attorneys can make more depending on how they rule. For instance, need 16 continuances on a criminal case? Don't pay your attorney. The judge will leave the victims and witnesses swinging in the breeze, having to come to court over and over again for no reason before he will make an attorney proceed.
How does a lawyer not getting paid make him more money? And if the lawyer isn't getting paid, he's typically going to withdraw, not seek a continuance. Certainly not 16 of them.Sure they do, but other attorneys can make more depending on how they rule. For instance, need 16 continuances on a criminal case? Don't pay your attorney. The judge will leave the victims and witnesses swinging in the breeze, having to come to court over and over again for no reason before he will make an attorney proceed.
What do lawyers hold themselves out to be?No, but neither do they don't hold themselves out as something they are not.
Are truck drivers, dentists, and plumbers judges?Do truck drivers endeavor to make less income than possible? What about dentists? Plumbers? Pilots?
Judges don't get paid based on how they rule. It is, however true, with state and local judges that are elected, a judge might feel somewhat constrained not to **** off too many people This does not apply to federal judges who have a fixed salary and life-time appointment, save for the very few who are impeached by Congress. Most of the aviation litigation ends up in federal court.Despite their constant chanting about truth and justice, the top priority of the legal profession is that attorneys make as much money as possible. It doesn't matter if they are trial attorneys, judges, or legislators, the priority remains the same.
Help me out here - when did Brin take ownership of this plane?When you own an airplane, want it ferried across an ocean, and hire people to perform work on it for that purpose, here’s a list of people who are responsible when the pilots end up dead: you and the people who worked on it. If you can prove wholesale pilot error leading to the accident that’s a defense, but there’s no evidence of pilot error here as the accident cause.
At what point did Google or Brin hire this mechanic? Did Brin or Google have any involvement in the selection of the maintenance firm, or the firm's hiring and assignment process? The complaint states that the operating firm that owned the aircraft contracted the maintenance, and nowhere do I see any evidence that Brin or Google had any involvement in this transaction between separate third parties.* Brin's mechanic who installed the ferry system for the May 20, 2023, flight did not follow any written instructions, did not use a checklist, and failed to fill out the required paperwork. The mechanic was later fired.
Ownership barely even matters. So let me restate it: If you instruct your minions to ferry your five-degrees-of-separation corporate entity owned airplane to Fiji, you’re still on the hook. Corporate shields can be clever attempts to immunize you from being held personally responsible as a general matter, sure, but corporate shields are often pierced. It’s not that hard. If he wanted the plane in Fiji to party—which appears to be the case—he’s screwed. (To the extent that paying 0.0002% of his net worth in a wrongful death judgment is what he considers “screwed”).Help me out here - when did Brin take ownership of this plane?
From what I read, this plane was owned, maintained, and operated by a 3rd party outfit, and not by Google or Brin.
If I request an intinerary from NetJets and NetJets screws up the maintenance on a ferry flight for the jet that they were going to assign to me, does that make me liable? Seriously?
Again, it won’t really matter. Everyone involved in the chain of decisions of hiring the mechanic, up and down that chain, will easily be kept on the hook. From the plaintiffs’ perspective, the defendants can all point at each other and fight each other all day long if they want to. That’s not the plaintiffs’ problem and the in-fighting actually benefits plaintiffs in these scenarios.At what point did Google or Brin hire this mechanic? Did Brin or Google have any involvement in the selection of the maintenance firm, or the firm's hiring and assignment process? The complaint states that the operating firm that owned the aircraft contracted the maintenance, and nowhere do I see any evidence that Brin or Google had any involvement in this transaction between separate third parties.
There's a whole lot of supposition going on in this statement, and there needs to be a whole lot evidence that has not been presented for any of it to hold.Ownership barely even matters. So let me restate it: If you instruct your minions to ferry your five-degrees-of-separation corporate entity owned airplane to Fiji, you’re still on the hook.
Brin and Google are almost certainly self-insured, just like nearly every mid-cap and larger corp.p.s. Brin has probably got solid liability insurance anyway.
Well, call it supposition if you want but it’s the complaint allegations. And the complaint does read as well-prepared and researched. Fact questions will be contested but I’m not seeing indications of bad faith and frivolous lawyer misconduct in it.There's a whole lot of supposition going on in this statement, and there needs to be a whole lot evidence that has not been presented for any of it to hold.
Because it doesn’t have to be in a complaint. And there doesn’t need to be an “ownership trail” anyway, for Brin to be liable.If there is an ownership trail between Southern Cross and Brin, why was it not made clear in the complaint?
Maybe maybe not. Whether Brin personally holds what the rest of us humans would call a liability policy, or he chooses to use a self-insured wealth management entity to write out checks valued at something less than his chosen threshold, I really dont know. But if a case of this nature falls within his S.I.R. amount, he’s deliberately chosen to not give a damn about litigation claims valued at this amount—meaning a couple million bucks per decedent. That’s life as a billionaire.Brin and Google are almost certainly self-insured, just like nearly every mid-cap and larger corp.
From a legal point of view, what would be required to prove that some entity was my minion?Ownership barely even matters. So let me restate it: If you instruct your minions to ferry your five-degrees-of-separation corporate entity owned airplane to Fiji, you’re still on the hook. Corporate shields can be clever attempts to immunize you from being held personally responsible as a general matter, sure, but corporate shields are often pierced. It’s not that hard. If he wanted the plane in Fiji to party—which appears to be the case—he’s screwed. (To the extent that paying 0.0002% of his net worth in a wrongful death judgment is what he considers “screwed”).
p.s. Brin has probably got solid liability insurance anyway. He won’t actually pay a dime personally. Not even lawyer fees.
I'm going to ask this again:Ownership barely even matters.
If you had as much money as Musk, the injured party would surely try to get you found liable, but really hoping for some "go away and don't bother me" money.If I arrange for an Uber ride, am I liable for a mechanical issue on the car that was unknown to me?
A complaint is how you start a lawsuit, not the end. It isn't, and doesn't usually contain, evidence. It's a bunch of allegations, some of them made "on information and belief."There's a whole lot of supposition going on in this statement, and there needs to be a whole lot evidence that has not been presented for any of it to hold.
What about an UberJet?If you had as much money as Musk, the injured party would surely try to get you found liable, but really hoping for some "go away and don't bother me" money.
Putting aside the absurdity of anybody with that much money slumming in an Uber, though.
If you’re rich enough that anyone should care, yeah, maybe, sure. Billionaires don’t sit around surfing websites for NetJets rides. Most of them force you to sign an NDA just to have a cup of coffee on their patio.I'm going to ask this again:
If I request an intinerary from NetJets and NetJets screws up the maintenance on a ferry flight for the jet that they were going to assign to me, does that make me liable? Seriously?
It's a serious question. Someone who can afford to use UberJet, NetJet, XO, or equivalent probably has deeper pockets than the mechanics working on those planes probably, oh, 99.99% of the time. Does that automatically make them a target for the liability lawsuit?If you’re rich enough that anyone should care, yeah, maybe, sure. Billionaires don’t sit around surfing websites for NetJets rides. Most of them force you to sign an NDA just to have a cup of coffee on their patio.
Why are you throwing the word “automatic” in there? The universe is out of all of our control. If you’re the founder of Google, yes, you might get sued if you ask your buddy to fly your airplane to Fiji and he dies. Or you might not. Generally when you are that closely connected to a fatality, you’re going to get sued unless you are judgment proof (meaning not rich enough to be worth it). Your NetJet analogy doesn’t make a lot of sense and is not what happened here. Brin was partying at his island in Fiji, wanted his plane there, asked his buddy to fly it over, and his buddy was killed. For the average shmoe like you or me—or maybe it’s just me—the only lesson here is to maintain your homeowners liability insurance and buy umbrella coverage too. Talk to an insurance broker regularly. By phone, not by email. And ask lots of questions.It's a serious question. Someone who can afford to use UberJet, NetJet, XO, or equivalent probably has deeper pockets than the mechanics working on those planes probably, oh, 99.99% of the time. Does that automatically make them a target for the liability lawsuit?
So, justice as you see it isn't based on actual finding the person guilty of wrong-doing and holding them responsible for their actions, but based rather on finding the person whom you can shake down for the largest sum.. Generally when you are that closely connected to a fatality, you’re going to get sued unless you are judgment proof (meaning not rich enough to be worth it).
How does it not? How is the operating firm in this case any different from every other private plane leasing firm in operation?Your NetJet analogy doesn’t make a lot of sense and is not what happened here.
Serious question: Are you aware of some facts other than those in the Complaint, or are you just assuming that Brin has some sort of magical immunity here? Even corporate forms can be pierced under the correct circumstances.It's a serious question. Someone who can afford to use UberJet, NetJet, XO, or equivalent probably has deeper pockets than the mechanics working on those planes probably, oh, 99.99% of the time. Does that automatically make them a target for the liability lawsuit?
That’s a misrepresentation of the law as I’m explaining it to you, but maybe that’s your ethics at work. Generally, the law of all 50 states is that if you hurt someone, you have to pay for it. That’s the basic concept of tort law as your very own state legislature and governor has deemed it. Corporate law can put up barriers to that notion of personal accountability, if you’re rich enough to get the right lawyers and accountants to make it harder. But those barriers are not impenetrable. For some reason you think this billionaire lifestyle, in which you can kill people but don’t need to worry about why, is “injustice,” and that’s totally cool but why don’t you call your legislator about it? The law is the law until the governor signs bills changing it. So, justice as you see it isn't based on actual finding the person guilty of wrong-doing and holding them responsible for their actions, but based rather on finding the person whom you can shake down for the largest sum.
I see.
I struggle mightily with the ethics of this approach.
I've read the complaint.Serious question: Are you aware of some facts other than those in the Complaint, or are you just assuming that Brin has some sort of magical immunity here? Even corporate forms can be pierced under the correct circumstances.
If this is REALLY the intent, why do the lawyers here go after everyone EXCEPT the manufacturers of the failed fuel system and the mechanic who installed it?Generally, the law of all 50 states is that if you hurt someone, you have to pay for it.
Lawsuits are expensive. If the mechanic you refer to isn’t a millionaire and doesn’t have liability insurance, why would you sue him?If this is REALLY the intent, why do the lawyers here go after everyone EXCEPT the manufacturers of the failed fuel system and the mechanic who installed it?
Are you aware of any private settlements reached with these other folks you’ve named? Or are you just assuming they weren’t pursued?I've read the complaint.
The aircraft was operated by Southern Cross Aviation.
Seafly, LLC is the maintenance firm that serviced the aircraft for a number of years leading up to the incident.
The aircraft was last worked on by James Kitti, a former employee of Seafly, LLC.
Theodore Neale is the Director of Aviation for Seafly, LLC.
Turtle-Pac is the company that manufactured the fuel bladders and electric fuel pumps that were installed on the plane and failed to operate correctly.
Aeroquip (Trinova subsidiary) is the company that manufactured the hoses and fittings used in the installation that failed to operate correctly.
Mr. Kitti installed fuel storage and transfer equipment on the plane without having nor referring to installation instructions fro the manufacturer, Turtle-Pac.
It is not clear why Mr. Kitti did not refer to these instructions for the installation, nor whether Turtle-Pac provided them with the equipment.
Mr. Kitti installed the equipment without filing the required FAA Form 337
Mr. Kitti installed the equipment without making the required entry in the aircraft's logbook.
Southern Cross did not file a flight plan for the ferry trip.
Mr. Kitti is not a named defendant.
Turtle-Pac is not a named defendant.
Aeroquip/Trinova is not a named defendant.
Mr. Brin is a named defendant.
Google is a named defendant.
Mr. Neale is a named defendant.
I think that this just about sums it up. The lawyers here are going after everyone EXCEPT those who might actually bear some responsibility for the incident.
Maybe they already settled.If this is REALLY the intent, why do the lawyers here go after everyone EXCEPT the manufacturers of the failed fuel system and the mechanic who installed it?
So, if the people who were actually responsible have settled, why continue to go after the rest? What's the real goal here?Maybe they already settled.
compared to this quoteThe “problem” you identify that a victim of mis-directed legal action being held liable without any actual responsibility for the wrongdoing having to pay would be amazing for trial lawyers such as myself, if it did in fact exist. It doesn’t.
(both written by Plaintiff's lawyers) hilarious.Generally when you are that closely connected to a fatality, you’re going to get sued unless you are judgment proof (meaning not rich enough to be worth it).
As I have said on here several times, Plaintiff's lawyers just want the insurance money. No matter how much they grandstand on justice, it's about the money.Lawsuits are expensive. If the mechanic you refer to isn’t a millionaire and doesn’t have liability insurance, why would you sue him?
I’m a defense lawyer. Civil litigation. There’s a lot of ad hominem in this dumb thread and very little discussion or actual curiosity about the law. Thought I’d wade in but ew. Peace out.I find this quote
compared to this quote
(both written by Plaintiff's lawyers) hilarious.
there can be a difference between what is just (moral, ethical) and what the law says.
This pretty much sums it up.Take them altogether and they say, "If you hurt someone you have to pay for it, unless you're not a millionaire, in which case some millionaire who is somehow linked to the situation will have to pay for it."
This pretty much sums it up.