Ferry flight lawsuit (mods please help with title)

Sudburian said:
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.
Click to expand...
From a legal point of view, what would be required to prove that some entity was my minion?

If I arrange for an Uber ride, am I liable for a mechanical issue on the car that was unknown to me? If so, what do I need to do to protect myself from that liability?
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
If I arrange for an Uber ride, am I liable for a mechanical issue on the car that was unknown to me?
Click to expand...
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.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
StraightnLevel said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

As for your LLC and corporate entities, sometimes those shields work and sometimes they don’t.
 
I have a vehicle that needs to be moved from the East Coast to the West Coast. That vehicle has always been serviced and inspected by a dealership, and was given a clean bill of health at the last inspection which happened just before the scheduled drive. For reasons, I decide to hire a driver to move the car under its own power. That driver crashes the car and dies in the process.

According to the logic I'm seeing here, me, the owner, despite not being involved in any way in the maintenance, service and inspection of the car, and not being aware of any faults with it, can be sued by the deceased's family because they car's steering failed? And I deserve to be sued, since I'm wealthy enough to afford to hire a driver to move it across the US?

Allow me to disagree with that logic.
Replace car with airplane.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. ‍

I should add that the pilot killed in this incident was a veteran of the United States Air Force and by all accounts a good man and a good pilot.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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?
Click to expand...
Lawsuits are expensive. If the mechanic you refer to isn’t a millionaire and doesn’t have liability insurance, why would you sue him?
StraightnLevel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 find this quote
imwithtuxedo said:
The “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.
Click to expand...
compared to this quote

Sudburian said:
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).
Click to expand...
(both written by Plaintiff's lawyers) hilarious.
 
Sudburian said:
Lawsuits are expensive. If the mechanic you refer to isn’t a millionaire and doesn’t have liability insurance, why would you sue him?
Click to expand...
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.
 
PPC1052 said:
I find this quote

compared to this quote


(both written by Plaintiff's lawyers) hilarious.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
I must commend Sudburian for standing here and explaining his views against the eventual onslaught of comments that he will get from said views
 
something that some fail to grasp: there can be a difference between what is just (moral, ethical) and what the law says.
 
Bob Noel said:
there can be a difference between what is just (moral, ethical) and what the law says.
Click to expand...

True.

And there can be a difference between what is just (moral, ethical) and what the lawyer says. And I think that's what's bugging some folks on this thread.

First a lawyer says,
Generally, the law of all 50 states is that if you hurt someone, you have to pay for it.​
and then the same lawyer says,
If the mechanic you refer to isn’t a millionaire and doesn’t have liability insurance, why would you sue him?​
despite that mechanic seeming to be the person who most likely hurt someone. That same lawyer also says,
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).​

Yet the lawyer doesn't seem to see any incongruity between these various statements. Take them all together 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."

1709928088882.gif
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
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."
Click to expand...
Often short on information and long on belief/hope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top