Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoseCuervo said:
What loss are the other owners suffering? The cost of the placard? Why would all the other owners want to fire sale their planes? Because the motors stop turning when they run out of fuel? Don't look know, but that also happens to every other plane in the sky, and car on the road, and boat on the ocean.... The internal combustion engine, quite the engineering marvel.

If you care about people, spend the $50 and fix the problem that concerns you. I would respect somebody that could solve all these people's problems with $50. I am not sure you were even damaged as it looks like your insurance company made you whole.
Click to expand...
I wonder if he even has the right to sue, as typically the insured who receives payment from his insurer must defer to the insurer's right of subrogation. If he has given his rights to the insurer and compromised the insurer's right of subrogation he may be liable to the insurer.
 
I wonder if he even has the right to sue, as typically the insured who receives payment from his insurer must defer to the insurer's right of subrogation. If he has given his rights to the insurer and compromised the insurer's right of subrogation he may be liable to the insurer


Please read the lawsuit. It lists all of the things I am suing Flight Design for. Again, 12,000 people have been to this thread. Over 1000 people have read the lawsuit but the lunitic fringe sticks around and makes up "facts" and calls me middle school playground names.

www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm

Again, I had fuel.

Please look up the "collateral source rule." http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x93.htm

I am pleased to educate you'all about the law.
No, there is no requirement that a party to a class action lawsuit against Flight Design can't also be the lawyer for the other plaintiffs.

Stop calling me poopy head. (or equivalent, "Clearly he has no class.") It does not advance the discussion or education on the law.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
No, there is no requirement that a party to a class action lawsuit against Flight Design can't also be the lawyer for the other plaintiffs.
Click to expand...

Yes, but to be a lawyer in Oregon, you have to be of good moral character, and the court there has ruled that you do not meet that burden.
 
danielabernath said:
Stop calling me poopy head. (or equivalent, "Clearly he has no class.") It does not advance the discussion or education on the law.
Click to expand...

And "education on the law" from someone who lacks the moral character to be a lawyer!:rofl:
 
Frank said:
I wonder if he even has the right to sue, as typically the insured who receives payment from his insurer must defer to the insurer's right of subrogation. If he has given his rights to the insurer and compromised the insurer's right of subrogation he may be liable to the insurer.
Click to expand...

Not true. In the event of recovery, he would hold funds received in trust for the subrogated entity. There may be provisions that give the right to the carrier to sue in his name, and there almost certainly would be a requirement to cooperate with subrogation efforts. But nothing would prevent him from trying to bring the claim himself.

There may be some issue with claim splitting, particularly as it relates to the personal injury claim, if for example there had been some medical benefits payment. But that would work to prevent the insurance company from suing, not him. Again, he would hold any recovery in trust, and would be required to pay back to the carrier what they paid him, although likely they would have to help pay costs of litigation.
 
PPC1052 said:
Not true. In the event of recovery, he would hold funds received in trust for the subrogated entity. There may be provisions that give the right to the carrier to sue in his name, and there almost certainly would be a requirement to cooperate with subrogation efforts. But nothing would prevent him from trying to bring the claim himself.

There may be some issue with claim splitting, particularly as it relates to the personal injury claim, if for example there had been some medical benefits payment. But that would work to prevent the insurance company from suing, not him. Again, he would hold any recovery in trust, and would be required to pay back to the carrier what they paid him, although likely they would have to help pay costs of litigation.
Click to expand...

Or, he'd just sign a release on behalf of the insurance company (singing as though he were the insurance company), and endorse the cheque to himself on behalf of the insurance company.
 
JeffDG said:
Or, he'd just sign a release on behalf of the insurance company (singing as though he were the insurance company), and endorse the cheque to himself on behalf of the insurance company.
Click to expand...

But we don't know that he has insurance. I'll bet not.
 
danielabernath said:
Please read the lawsuit. It lists all of the things I am suing Flight Design for. Again, 12,000 people have been to this thread. Over 1000 people have read the lawsuit but the lunitic fringe sticks around and makes up "facts" and calls me middle school playground names.
Click to expand...

OMG!! He still thinks that watching this train wreck means we agree with him.:no:
 
He's not going to answer about 91.151, because it would sink his "case".

My prediction: summary judgement for defendant, "plaintiff" pays all defense fees to date.

I don't think Flight Design or any of the other defendants have much to worry about.

The aircraft had sufficient fuel and I was in compliance with all rules and regulations.
How would FD prevail on a summary judgment motion.
Is there a contract or statutory provision that states that I would be FD's attorney fees if I did not prevail?


(*crickets*)
 
danielabernath said:
He's not going to answer about 91.151, because it would sink his "case".

My prediction: summary judgement for defendant, "plaintiff" pays all defense fees to date.

I don't think Flight Design or any of the other defendants have much to worry about.

The aircraft had sufficient fuel and I was in compliance with all rules and regulations.
Click to expand...
Incorrect; but you are free to keep repeating an untruth hoping for it to become true.
 
Old Geek said:
Are you sure? I tried to help him out a few months ago with an oil pressure sensor issue and assumed it was his.
Click to expand...

Oh God...I bet you'll be one of the "Does" soon. Did you install the placard to tell him he's not allowed to fly while being a dubmass? You're liable!!!
 
danielabernath said:
Again, I had fuel.
Click to expand...

Not enough to please the engine. You can't run the tanks totally dry on pretty much any airplane; there's always unusable fuel, and the POH would indicate so. The airplane is designed this way on purpose, to prevent any small amounts of water or dirt in the tank from leaving via the outlet to the engine. The outlet is placed a little way above the bottom of the tank to achieve this. On purpose. Much safer that way, and anyone who knows their stuff knows there's such a thing as unusable fuel.

Again, not enough to please the engine. And the engine is always the boss when it comes to feeding time.

Dan
 
danielabernath said:
The aircraft had sufficient fuel and I was in compliance with all rules and regulations.
Click to expand...


You aren't one to directly answer a question, but I will try to rephrase it so that even you might be able to understand it. I assume you do this to try to obfuscate the situation, but the people here aren't buying it. You may have had thousands of hits on your website, but how many posts of glowing support have you had and what morsels of praise have you had by these supporters?

Exactly how much usable fuel, based on time, did you actually have left in the tanks?

How much fuel does the POH say is unusable?

Please answer those questions with a direct answer, not with "I had sufficient fuel in the tanks."

This is not an answer, it is a copout designed to mesh with your lawsuit. The investigative process that is unleashed because of this lawsuit will undoubtedly illuminate the actual cause of this "off airport landing," so you might as well come out with the actual facts here as well.

Or are you afraid that the people here with more intelligence than you think, and with less fraud minded desires than yourself, might be able to see through your greed?
 
jmp470 said:
I hope FD goes after court costs and associated costs for bad press.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

The court filings are privileged (they can't support a defamation claim), but his posts here can. He's been defaming FD, and he's made multiple false statements of fact.
 
SoloEqs said:
Is a baseball bat considered "freedom of expression" . . ?

Abby Normal is the kind of lowlife who makes it harder for everyone else. I feel sorry for his wife.
Click to expand...

We're on page 22 and he hasn't answered a question yet. But he did post some fabulous photos of himself.
 
SoloEqs said:
I feel sorry for his current wife.
Click to expand...

She should feel lucky.

She's the owner of an aircraft that is obviously defective, and she let him fly the plane. She can be held just as liable as anyone else.
 
Exactly how much usable fuel, based on time, did you actually have left in the tanks?

 Read the official documents:
"The fuel guage said between 3 to 5 gallons.
The stick from Flight Design said 3.5 gallons.
OR34 to 6K5."

FD says that 5 gallons an hour fuel consumption.

These are facts. Your fictions, snarkily made while stamping your pretty little foot on the floor do not change facts. "Facts are stubborn things. John Adams in his closing arguments in successfully getting the UK soldiers acquitted in the so called "Boston Massacre.")

Except for the secret, intentionally hidden Fight Design-defect there was enough fuel. I did not run out of fuel. Simple.

FD pays me damages.
FD pays me pre judgment interest.
FD pays me punitive damages.
FD pays me treble damages for Unfair Business Practices.
FD pays me attorney fees (unfair business practices)
FD pays me costs of suit, e.g. filing fees, deposition costs, my expert witness fees.

This is a textbook case of Flight Design risking the lives of American pilots, knowingly rather than instruct or warn of a known deadly design defect.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
Exactly how much usable fuel, based on time, did you actually have left in the tanks?

 Read the official documents:
"The fuel guage said between 3 to 5 gallons.
The stick from Flight Design said 3.5 gallons.
OR34 to Sisters Eagle Airport."

FD says that 5 gallons an hour fuel consumption
Click to expand...

Poh says 1 gal is unusable, so you had 2.5 usable, that's 30 min worth of fuel. Per FAR 91.151 that's Not enough to legally take off.

Care to comment?
 
Poh says 1 gal is unusable, so you had 2.5 usable, that's 30 min worth of fuel. Per FAR 91.151 that's Not enough to legally take off.

comment. You are incorrect. "facts are stubborn things"
 
bartmc said:
Poh says 1 gal is unusable, so you had 2.5 usable, that's 30 min worth of fuel. Per FAR 91.151 that's Not enough to legally take off.

Care to comment?
Click to expand...

Fuel gauges only indicate usable fuel.
 
danielabernath said:
The stick from Flight Design said 3.5 gallons.
Click to expand...

You need to read up on the concepts of:
- useable fuel
and
- 'unporting'

These are 'the facts' as per the information you have provided here:

You took up with 2.5 gallons of useable fuel on board.

5min takeoff and climb at 7.1gph --> 0.6 gallons

75% cruise fuel burn is 4.9gph The 1.9 gallons useable you had should have left you 22 minutes.

By your estimation it was what, 6 miles between the two airports. Per the regs, you were required to have fuel for the climb, cruise AND THEN 30 minutes at normal cruise.

You didn't.

You crashed.
 
danielabernath said:
Exactly how much usable fuel, based on time, did you actually have left in the tanks?

 Read the official documents:
"The fuel guage said between 3 to 5 gallons.
The stick from Flight Design said 3.5 gallons.
OR34 to 6K5."

FD says that 5 gallons an hour fuel consumption.

These are facts. Your fictions, snarkily made while stamping your pretty little foot on the floor do not change facts. "Facts are stubborn things. John Adams in his closing arguments in successfully getting the UK soldiers acquitted in the so called "Boston Massacre.")



Except for the secret, intentionally hidden Fight Design-defect there was enough fuel. I did not run out of fuel. Simple.

FD pays me damages.
FD pays me pre judgment interest.
FD pays me punitive damages.
FD pays me treble damages for Unfair Business Practices.
FD pays me attorney fees (unfair business practices)
FD pays me costs of suit, e.g. filing fees, deposition costs, my expert witness fees.

This is a textbook case of Flight Design risking the lives of American pilots, knowingly rather than instruct or warn of a known deadly design defect.
Click to expand...

The burden is on you to prove you didn't run out of fuel. So I will ask one more time. Were the fuel tanks inspected after the off field landing, and if so, what was the quantity of usable fuel remaining ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top