Ferry flight lawsuit (mods please help with title)

Do you think that's appropriate IF he had nothing to do with it, short of having a 3rd party install the ferry tank and hiring the ferry crew?
If the investigation determines the ferry tank was incorrectly installed, they should go after the installers. If the ferry crew mismanaged the fuel, for whatever reason, it's on them.

I find it unacceptable to go after the owner just because he has money. It's like a car owner being sued by the guy he sold the car to, because the car crashed due to an unknown manufacturing defect.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Do you think that's appropriate IF he had nothing to do with it, short of having a 3rd party install the ferry tank and hiring the ferry crew?
If the investigation determines the ferry tank was incorrectly installed, they should go after the installers. If the ferry crew mismanaged the fuel, for whatever reason, it's on them.

I find it unacceptable to go after the owner just because he has money. It's like a car owner being sued by the guy he sold the car to, because the car crashed due to an unknown manufacturing defect.
Click to expand...
IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.

But here's the catch. Neither side knows what is true until discovery is complete. For all you know, Brin was told the job really needed a special valve, but that valve would take 3 months to ship, and he didn't want to wait to start squiring his guests around Fiji, so he threatened the installer or waved money at them. You're just ASSSUMING Brin is blameless. Right now that is an unknown.

Discovery will uncover all all the relevant evidence. All parties will be deposed, email records will be provided, etc etc. Once that is all done, if the facts support your assumption that Brin was blameless, then the process will likely peter out.

Keep in mind Brin is only going to pay the deductible, unless he committed some really gross act of negligence to void his coverage. The insurance company is on the hook for everything from the deductible up to the limit of coverage. I assume billionaires have astronomical coverage, which means the insurance company is going to fight like hell to keep the settlement close to the deductible.
 
Last edited:
BTW, both sides have a strong incentive to settle. Actual trials are obscenely expensive for both sides, and have uncertain outcomes. If the case against Brin is not strong, the plaintiff's lawyers can squander huge amounts of money and time for no result. It's a high stakes calculation of risk for them.
 
Ed Haywood said:
BTW, both sides have a strong incentive to settle. Actual trials are obscenely expensive for both sides
Click to expand...
And that's where the problem lies. The innocent party should not have to bear the cost of the legal expenses. If you sue and you lose, it's all on you. That wil deter people who sue just because they hope the rich party will settle.

I'm not even sure a jury trial is how these things should be decided. Average Joe (who might think the Earth is flat) might not be able to correctly determine if valve brand A was a better option versus the installed valve brand B. A jury of 12 certified maintenace people, on the other hand...
 
StraightnLevel said:
If he had nothing to do with it, the settlement should be zero.

As for the rest of your post, I think that you may not understand how most large entities operate. They are almost universally self-insured. Thus, the insurance company does not cover the risk, they merely process the claims and provide actuarial input to business decisions.
Click to expand...
I am president of a $50M business. We do business with some of the largest corporations in the world. Let's just say my knowledge of the topic is sufficient for my purposes.

I also have experience making decisions on both sides of the aisle, as both plaintiff and defendant in mediations and lawsuits.

Your statement that the settlement should be zero assumes 100% certainty of the conclusion. But certainty does not exist in the real world. In the real world, the decision will be made by 12 everyday idiots, or maybe by one big idiot in a robe. Neither side can be certain which way that decision might fall at the end of a very long and expensive process. So both sides have a powerful incentive to settle, rather than roll the dice.
 
I will admit that I don't have the full list of states that do that for frivolous lawsuits. But it's not all of them, and it depends on a judge (?) throwing out the case.

Looking at some of the cases out there that do go to trial and get settled for six zeros, cases where the engine maker is sued because the VFR-only pilot flew in IMC and smashed into a mountain, it doesn't seem to be working that well, does it? Or the guy sued because the plane he was leasing to a flight school was rented by a suicidal guy who crashed it on purpose, also killing his child in the process.
Seems to me (average Joe when it comes to legal stuff) that there's some room for improvement.
 
AV8R_87 said:
I will admit that I don't have the full list of states that do that for frivolous lawsuits. But it's not all of them, and it depends on a judge (?) throwing out the case.
Click to expand...
Well, since the suit was filed in California, we don't need a full list of states, do we?

California Civil Code 128.5

And if not a judge, who would you propose should have the authority to declare a lawsuit frivolous?
 
Ed Haywood said:
suit was filed in California
Click to expand...
Some of my comments applied to the general state of affairs as well. It would be better if such protections existed in all states.
Ed Haywood said:
And if not a judge, who would you propose should have the authority to declare a lawsuit frivolous?
Click to expand...
The (?) after the judge was there because I didn't know if it was solely a judge decision or if other legal entities were involved.
Based on the cases that still go through, it does look like they could use better judgement.
McD being sued by mom because kid burns their mouth shoving in terrible stuff that came out of 350 degree oil a minute ago? Since when is that anything else than bad parenting?
Not defending McD in general, they're a horrible corporation concocting product (you can't call it food) that is as addictive as possible. But they should be brought to court on valid (and provable) accusations.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The law provides for recovery of legal costs for frivolous lawsuits in most states. So what's your point?
Click to expand...
Not in any practical sense. One must prove that it is frivolous. That has it's own expense and is rarely worth it. What people are suggesting is the "English Rule", you lose, you pay. Very different from what we have now.
 
Hang 4 said:
Not in any practical sense. One must prove that it is frivolous. That has it's own expense and is rarely worth it. What people are suggesting is the "English Rule", you lose, you pay. Very different from what we have now.
Click to expand...
Many people suggesting the English rule have never litigated under the English rule. It has its own set of perverse incentives.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
Make the loser's attorney personally responsible for all of the winner's legal expenses. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
I agree that we need laws that require judges to do some gatekeeping in conjunction with requirements to plead some facts that suggests liability might be found against a particular defendant. Combine that with liberal rules allowing adding defendants if the plaintiffs discover facts later that implicates additional parties. The occasional attorney having to pony up for the legal expenses of a party then named in a suit with out a factual basis, would definitely curb the practice of suing them all, and let the jury sort it out.
 
Ed Haywood said:
IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.

But here's the catch. Neither side knows what is true until discovery is complete. For all you know, Brin was told the job really needed a special valve, but that valve would take 3 months to ship, and he didn't want to wait to start squiring his guests around Fiji, so he threatened the installer or waved money at them. You're just ASSSUMING Brin is blameless. Right now that is an unknown.

Discovery will uncover all all the relevant evidence. All parties will be deposed, email records will be provided, etc etc. Once that is all done, if the facts support your assumption that Brin was blameless, then the process will likely peter out.

Keep in mind Brin is only going to pay the deductible, unless he committed some really gross act of negligence to void his coverage. The insurance company is on the hook for everything from the deductible up to the limit of coverage. I assume billionaires have astronomical coverage, which means the insurance company is going to fight like hell to keep the settlement close to the deductible.
Click to expand...
The fact that Brin's liability is unknown should mandate he not be sued until it is known. Under your hypothetical, the plaintiff's will learn of Brin's perfidy upon receipt of the first responses to written discovery requests as other defendants will not want to take the rap for something that Brin did and likely will rat him out at first opportunity. When that happens, plaintiff's amend their complaint to name Brin.
 
Kristin said:
The fact that Brin's liability is unknown should mandate he not be sued until it is known. Under your hypothetical, the plaintiff's will learn of Brin's perfidy upon receipt of the first responses to written discovery requests as other defendants will not want to take the rap for something that Brin did and likely will rat him out at first opportunity. When that happens, plaintiff's amend their complaint to name Brin.
Click to expand...
Sadly it works that way in in Tort 101 but not so much in the real worlds of trial lawyers…in my case an unknown maintenance company, an FBO who happened to be on my home field and never as much touched my Arrow, and Garmin all sued and not a single Garmin product in the aircraft. All had to retain counsel and travel to an out of state court to seek relief.
 
Warlock said:
Sadly it works that way in in Tort 101 but not so much in the real worlds of trial lawyers…in my case an unknown maintenance company, an FBO who happened to be on my home field and never as much touched my Arrow, and Garmin all sued and not a single Garmin product in the aircraft. All had to retain counsel and travel to an out of state court to seek relief.
Click to expand...
I know it doesn't CURRENTLY work that way. I am advocating that one of the kinds of tort reformed needed is to sanction attorneys for naming defendants without a shred of evidence that liability might accrue. Admittedly, the wrongfully named defendant would move/sue for their attorney's fees, but that just involves more attorney's fees to be paid by the wrongfully named defendant. Courts should be required to automatically award costs and fees, payable by the plaintiffs' attorneys, when there is no basis for fraudulently naming a party. Most of these BS suits are pretty obvious, like a suit after an engine failure sues both Bendix and Slick claiming their magneto caused the accident. Both can't reasonably be guilty.
 
Speaking of assessing costs to the losing party, I observed a civil trial in an Arizona court a few years ago. Plaintiff fell and alleged injuries in defendants' home. Insurance offered to settle but was rejected by plaintiff. Jury found for defendants.

Costs incurred by the defense prior to the settlement offer were assessed to the plaintiff. Costs incurred by the defense after the settlement offer were doubly assessed to the plaintiff.
 
AV8R_87 said:
And that's where the problem lies. The innocent party should not have to bear the cost of the legal expenses. If you sue and you lose, it's all on you. That wil deter people who sue just because they hope the rich party will settle.

I'm not even sure a jury trial is how these things should be decided. Average Joe (who might think the Earth is flat) might not be able to correctly determine if valve brand A was a better option versus the installed valve brand B. A jury of 12 certified maintenace people, on the other hand...
Click to expand...
Just think… that flat earth juror gets to vote.
 
Kristin said:
I know it doesn't CURRENTLY work that way. I am advocating that one of the kinds of tort reformed needed is to sanction attorneys for naming defendants without a shred of evidence that liability might accrue. Admittedly, the wrongfully named defendant would move/sue for their attorney's fees, but that just involves more attorney's fees to be paid by the wrongfully named defendant. Courts should be required to automatically award costs and fees, payable by the plaintiffs' attorneys, when there is no basis for fraudulently naming a party. Most of these BS suits are pretty obvious, like a suit after an engine failure sues both Bendix and Slick claiming their magneto caused the accident. Both can't reasonably be guilty.
Click to expand...

This remedy already exists
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Just think… that flat earth juror gets to vote.
Click to expand...
That makes me shudder, but it's a constitutional right (brought to you by Carl's Jr.) and any attempt at tweaking that would go down a very slippery slope, in my opinion. Doesn't take much to go back to three-fifths of a vote.
But juries are supposed to be made of "one's peers". An argument should be made that a jury member with no knowledge on the topic and actions standing trial is not "one's peer".
 
AV8R_87 said:
That makes me shudder, but it's a constitutional right (brought to you by Carl's Jr.) and any attempt at tweaking that would go down a very slippery slope, in my opinion. Doesn't take much to go back to three-fifths of a vote.
But juries are supposed to be made of "one's peers". An argument should be made that a jury member with no knowledge on the topic and actions standing trial is not "one's peer".
Click to expand...
I was making a joke. Not trying to have a conversation.
 
Ed Haywood said:
That is actually a high bar. There is more than a shred of evidence in the Brin suit.
Click to expand...
I was speaking conceptually and mostly responding to cases where a manufacturer is sued, even through none of their product was in the plane. I was not making a specific, legalistic proposal for legislation.

Even given the ambiguity inherent in the word "shred", I don't see where anything available to us shows a shred of evidence against Brin. Some may yet come to light, but that is why plaintiffs can amend complaints.
 
Kristin said:
In theory, but judges need stronger mandates to make it happen.
Click to expand...

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.
 
squincher said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do truck drivers endeavor to make less income than possible? What about dentists? Plumbers? Pilots?
 
I thought this was America.
squincher said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
StraightnLevel said:
That could depend on whether their position is elected or appointed.
Click to expand...

So which ones are paid for specific outcomes? How do those outcomes fare on appeal?

Is this a commission-based scheme where a decision being overturned on appeal results in the initial payment to the judge being recouped?


So many questions.
 
Palmpilot said:
:confused2: Don't judges make the same money regardless of how they rule?
Click to expand...

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.
Lindberg said:
Do truck drivers endeavor to make less income than possible? What about dentists? Plumbers? Pilots?
Click to expand...

No, but neither do they don't hold themselves out as something they are not.
 
squincher said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was just puzzled by the inclusion of judges on the list of people whose work might be affected by financial incentives.
 
squincher said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
squincher said:
No, but neither do they don't hold themselves out as something they are not.
Click to expand...
What do lawyers hold themselves out to be?
 
Last edited:
squincher said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lawyer here. Not seeing anything ridiculous about this lawsuit or its theories. The complaint is posted within the article above. Brin wanted this plane to be ferried from California to Fiji. Brin personally owns a Fijian island. Unless someone can explain to me that his corporate entities needed an $8 million plane in Fiji for legitimate business reasons having nothing to do with Brin enjoying life, his personal liability in this transaction seems pretty easy to establish. What’s going to his best argument that this was a corporate transaction carried out in furtherance of corporate purposes?

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.
 
Lawsuit allegations of what the FAA found during its investigation:

* No Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”) was issued for the ferry fuel system installed on the subject aircraft.

* No FAA Form 337 appears to exist for the auxiliary fuel system installed on the subject aircraft

* No logbook entries were made for the installation of the ferry fuel system used for the fatal flight.

* No Special Airworthiness (Ferry Permit) was requested or approved for the fatal flight.

* 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.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
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.
StraightnLevel said:
If there is an ownership trail between Southern Cross and Brin, why was it not made clear in the complaint?
Click to expand...
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.
StraightnLevel said:
Brin and Google are almost certainly self-insured, just like nearly every mid-cap and larger corp.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top