Admit It... They Got Stupid, They Got Killed

  • Thread starter Thread starter KennyFlys
  • Start date Start date
K

KennyFlys

Guest
But, the family and lawyers want to blame someone else. I guess any bank account is an island in the storm? I'll be asking my soon-to-be aviation attorney/instrument student about this one.

Press reports last week noted that the family of Cory Lidle, the New York Yankees baseball player who crashed in October 2006 while trying to reverse course in a tight Class B corridor in New York City, is suing Cirrus Design for $45 million in lost wages that he might have earned. The premise is that a flight control system malfunction caused the Cirrus SR20 to slam into the side of a building.
Click to expand...
More Lawsuit Foolishness

Bruce Landsberg has an interesting concept on how to apply the proceeds of a legitimate law suit.
 
The wife should sue the parents of Cory Lidle for producing a son who malfunctioned at a critical moment.
-harry
 
What idiots...

If they wanted to sue anyone I could see it being the flight instructor who was in the plane with him at the time, but even that I'd question. I fail to see how it's the fault of the plane manufacturer.

I'll tell my mom to sue Volvo for making a defective car. Clearly, it was defective seeing as she slammed on the brakes on ice and it spun out and hit a guard rail.

Why do people get away with these kinds of lawsuits in aviation?
 
Duh! Nothing wrong with the aircraft, just the pilot. But it's an aircraft, so there has to be a lawsuit. And no wonder that we have to pay so much for an airplane!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What idiots...

If they wanted to sue anyone I could see it being the flight instructor who was in the plane with him at the time, but even that I'd question. I fail to see how it's the fault of the plane manufacturer.

I'll tell my mom to sue Volvo for making a defective car. Clearly, it was defective seeing as she slammed on the brakes on ice and it spun out and hit a guard rail.

Why do people get away with these kinds of lawsuits in aviation?
Click to expand...

I'm certain Lidle did name the CFI in the lawsuits and got all of the $0 he was good for.

Now name the builder of the building for erecting a hazard.

The game here is no more than how much pain they can cause the various defendants until they get them to pay off because it's cheaper than teh legal costs of going all the way to trial.
 
KennyFlys said:
Bruce Landsberg has an interesting concept on how to apply the proceeds of a legitimate law suit.
Click to expand...


As a philosophical point, my opinion whenever there is a design flaw, is that actual damages should be awarded to the family and punitive damages, if any, should go to fixing the problem for the rest of the fleet.

That's a really dumb idea. They wouldn't be punitive damages any more, would they?


Trapper John
 
Who would be paying the punitive damages and to whom would those funds go? I think you missed something.
 
The funds would go to those who also own that particular aircraft to repair or modify the issue that was the cause of the incident. The defendant would still pay out punitive damages. In the end, the suit would not be a cash cow for the plaintiff and preferably not for the attorneys, either. This is how class action suits should work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KennyFlys said:
The defendant would still pay out punitive damages.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be punitive damages any more. The defendant (manufacturer) would receive the benefit of having their defective product improved. That's not punitive, it's a reward. The point of punitive damages is to punish the manufacturer for behaving badly.

Trapper John
 
Read again. It's not going to the manufacturer. Not all bad designs have modification paid for by the manufacturer.
 
Richard said:
So will aircraft now be labled as attractive nuisances?
Click to expand...

I'll be killed for this....

Maybe Cirrus could add one more message to the startup checklist that displays on the glass:

Do you have more money than brains today?

:rolleyes:
 
mikea said:
I'll be killed for this....

Maybe Cirrus could add one more message to the startup checklist that displays on the glass:

Do you have more money than brains today?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think you're not off the mark. If I were the judge in this case I would compare stats on proficiency in TAA and NTSB reports. Case dismissed.
 
mikea said:
I'll be killed for this....

Maybe Cirrus could add one more message to the startup checklist that displays on the glass:

Do you have more money than brains today?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Good idea. Now, how do you get this added everyone else's checklist?

Except mine. I've NEVER done anything stupid. Well, perhaps not never, but, well...... Never mind.
 
Don't complain to me. Write to Landsberg.

I'd rather such proceeds go to a more appropriate use than a cash cow for someone such as in this case... where there's no case at all outside the minds of a potentially ignorant jury and a conniving lawyer.
 
In this case, I'd rather the lawyer eat a large chunk attempting something futile.
 
Richard said:
I think you're not off the mark. If I were the judge in this case I would compare stats on proficiency in TAA and NTSB reports. Case dismissed.
Click to expand...

Except the plaintiffs would NEVER let the case be decided by a judge. They'll want a Cook County (It's YOUR lottery award day!) jury.
 
So someone flies a fully functional airplane into the side of a building and it's somehow the airplanes fault? And this is a logical conclusion based on what combination of extremely hallucinogenic drugs fed to what degree of psychotic break personality?

Flipping idiotic idgets the whole lot of 'em. Pretty much self inflicted from the sound of it.
 
fgcason said:
So someone flies a fully functional airplane into the side of a building and it's somehow the airplanes fault?
Click to expand...

No, the premise in the lawsuit is that a flight control system malfunction caused the Cirrus SR20 to slam into the side of a building. One wonders what evidence has been found that suggests a flight control system malfunction.
 
roncachamp said:
No, the premise in the lawsuit is that a flight control system malfunction caused the Cirrus SR20 to slam into the side of a building. One wonders what evidence has been found that suggests a flight control system malfunction.
Click to expand...

The evidence is that two Cirrus's had flight control problems? What else do you need? That's simple.

Imagine. At trial the defendants would need to present a diagram or better, an animation showing the real speed / angle of bank = turn radius truth.

Which concept is easier for your Cook County juror to grok...especially since "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THESE FINE MEN DIED AND SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY!" ?
 
mikea said:
The evidence is that two Cirrus's had flight control problems? What else do you need? That's simple.
Click to expand...

In theory, you'd need to show that a flight control system malfunction caused the crash. In practice, you make an emotional appeal to an ignorant jury.
 
roncachamp said:
No, the premise in the lawsuit is that a flight control system malfunction caused the Cirrus SR20 to slam into the side of a building. One wonders what evidence has been found that suggests a flight control system malfunction.
Click to expand...
Maybe they should name the building owners, the city which allowed the building, the builders, et al.

I mean, it would only take a small amount of foresight to realize a taller building would be an airplane magnet. The Empire State building circa 1945 was a precedent for that. So...the city Bldg & Planning was negligent.
 
As with a lot of personal injury/wrongful death cases, the plaintiff will name just about anybody they can and let the defendants worry about how to get out of it. Remember that the plaintiff must only have a good faith belief that the actions (or inactions) of CD could have proximately led to lidle's death. That is, at this stage, their only burden.

CD will probably fight this one, and if I'd have to guess, they're going to prepare for their summary judgement hearing like the dickens - because that will be an argument just in front of the judge rather than the jury. But even to get to that point will be expensive because this will be a case that is all about the "experts" who will issue reports (in the plaintiff's case) saying that geometry, sky conditions and pilot error can all be factored out to end up with the finding that design flaw was more likely than not a factor in the accident.

Since New York is a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, the plaintiff can prevail even if plaintiff's hubby was 99% at fault and cirrus is found to be only 1% at fault (though this will affect the damage award. Given a big enough award to begin with, 1% of it might still be worth fighting over though).

This is why I never liked litigation.............
 
KennyFlys said:
The funds would go to those who also own that particular aircraft to repair or modify the issue that was the cause of the incident. The defendant would still pay out punitive damages. In the end, the suit would not be a cash cow for the plaintiff and preferably not for the attorneys, either. This is how class action suits should work.
Click to expand...

Unless the manufacturer wants to be repeatedly sued for the same thing in the future, it would already have to incur the expenses to fix the existing fleet. So the proposed application of the punitives would just mean that the manufacturer gets to kill two birds with one stone - pay the punitives AND fix the fleet at the same time...defeating the purpose of punitive damages.
 
Trapper John said:
I bet you'd sell more Cessnas if you didn't backhand Cirrus. My 2 cents...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

I'm an advocate of the customer interested in travelling in a certified aircraft. Trusted for sound advice, I will not sell a Cessna 206, 350 or 400 to a student or low-time private pilot. Yes, it has costs me sales. But, I believe it's the wrong thing to do for reasons stated in the above link. And, yes, I blame Cirrus marketing and sales tactics that lure new pilots and flight instructors, like Cory Lidle over their heads. Case in point: http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp200/n3089n/CIMG3187.jpg

I may be accused of "bashing" Cirrus. Well, say anything that is construed as not positive about aviation's darling child, and you better have thick skin. What I'm "bashing" is selling high performance aircraft to new pilots.

If only the dead pilots could speak.

Oh, and I totally agree with you.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Unless the manufacturer wants to be repeatedly sued for the same thing in the future, it would already have to incur the expenses to fix the existing fleet. So the proposed application of the punitives would just mean that the manufacturer gets to kill two birds with one stone - pay the punitives AND fix the fleet at the same time...defeating the purpose of punitive damages.
Click to expand...
The alternative is the lawsuit lottery we have today. There's already an ambulance-chasing lawyer who's trying his case against AMD over the crash of a Zodiac - caused, IMAO, by a CFI's st00pid decision to try to close a partially unlatched canopy in the air against the direct instruction in the POH to land and fix it there - in the media, hoping to win a big payout.

As long as the legal system is a lottery that pays people undeserved amounts for their own st00pidity, we will continue to have problems in aviation and many other fields.
 
Last edited:
n3089n said:
I'm an advocate of the customer interested in travelling in a certified aircraft. Trusted for sound advice, I will not sell a Cessna 206, 350 or 400 to a student or low-time private pilot. Yes, it has costs me sales. But, I believe it's the wrong thing to do for reasons stated in the above link. And, yes, I blame Cirrus marketing and sales tactics that lure new pilots and flight instructors, like Cory Lidle over their heads. Case in point: http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp200/n3089n/CIMG3187.jpg

I may be accused of "bashing" Cirrus. Well, say anything that is construed as not positive about aviation's darling child, and you better have thick skin. What I'm "bashing" is selling high performance aircraft to new pilots.

If only the dead pilots could speak.

Oh, and I totally agree with you.
Click to expand...

Cirrus or not- I always wondered if the East River corridor was really intended for helicopters- even as a student pilot with 10 hours. The flight instructor should have seen it was a dead-end (due to the airspace) and so narrow that a 180° turn could be difficult. Even after getting in there, they could have (should have) busted the class B and lose a certificate at worst, get chewed out more likely. This accident was poor planning and a hasty response th the class B border. This was just the NYC version of an Idaho box canyon- those have claimed many aircraft of many types. This NYC incident could have happened with almost any plane.

I'm not saying you are wrong- I merely suggest you choose another example for your point than Cory Lidle.
 
jmaynard said:
The alternative is the lawsuit lottery we have today. ....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're talking about, because as I've just explained, it's not really a suggestion for anything at all, because the system is already in place to address the issue of fixing the problem sued upon (i.e., fix your products, or face more lawsuits).

If you want to reform the legal system, start with a loser-pays system, as has already been suggested.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I'm not saying you are wrong- I merely suggest you choose another example for your point than Cory Lidle.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of the sort. The radio station asked ME to be a guest. THEY had the questions. My interest was to downplay little airplanes as being seen as possible tools for terrorism, and explaining how Cory, very unfortunately, found himself boxed in over his head.
 
n3089n said:
I have no intention of the sort. The radio station asked ME to be a guest. THEY had the questions. My interest was to downplay little airplanes as being seen as possible tools for terrorism, and explaining how Cory, very unfortunately, found himself boxed in over his head.
Click to expand...

I'm confused- They got themselves in a situation where the same outcome was likely for most airframes but you blame Cirrus marketing for that? I wouldn't try that turn in that spot in a C-152, which is a real trainer.

BTW- I appreciate you downplaying the use of "little airpanes" as tools of terrorism.
 
n3089n said:
I'm an advocate of the customer interested in travelling in a certified aircraft. Trusted for sound advice, I will not sell a Cessna 206, 350 or 400 to a student or low-time private pilot. Yes, it has costs me sales. But, I believe it's the wrong thing to do for reasons stated in the above link. And, yes, I blame Cirrus marketing and sales tactics that lure new pilots and flight instructors, like Cory Lidle over their heads. Case in point: http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp200/n3089n/CIMG3187.jpg

I may be accused of "bashing" Cirrus. Well, say anything that is construed as not positive about aviation's darling child, and you better have thick skin. What I'm "bashing" is selling high performance aircraft to new pilots.
Click to expand...

So, it appears that you and Kenny BOTH think that it's OK for a new pilot to train in a 182 (conspicuously absent from your list of planes you would not sell them, above), but that an SR20 is a horrible choice (based on you both posting the SR20 ad).

So, I ask again. What's the difference between a student training in a 182 vs. an SR20? They're within 10 knots in speed, carry the same payload within 50 lbs, and the 182 is bigger, harder to fly, and burns more fuel.

So why, now, is it so wrong for someone to train in an SR20? I don't get it. :dunno:
 
Cap'n Jack said:
...but you blame Cirrus marketing for that? I wouldn't try that turn in that spot in a C-152, which is a real trainer.

BTW- I appreciate you downplaying the use of "little airpanes" as tools of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Now honestly, I'd have to refresh my memory, but if it serves me correctly, both Cory and his instructor were "wet behind the ears" pilots, not having a clue of the danger we Monday morning quarterback see.

I would not choose this mishap as the best case in point, but Cirrus does in fact target market the SR20 to student and new pilots.
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp200/n3089n/CIMG3187.jpg

It's not a docile plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top