Lycoming hit with $26M verdict!!!

[tmyers]

I am reading "Will work for Flying Time" and I am thinking not in my airplane, thinking that since I own an aircraft I must be perceived as being rich. I wouldn't expose my family to the potential lawsuit if something were to happen.

 

[Ted]

Well, you're assuming no harm done, i'm just going by what was posted in the case. Either way, if no harm done, Lycoming will win the appeal and all of this going back and forth is for the birds. If they lose the appeal, then maybe, just maybe, something is inherently wrong at Lycoming and the 26 million dollar judgment is enough to convince them to fix it. In which case others will follow suit to fix/prevent the issue and insurance rates may eventually fall because that risk has been taken out of the market.

Again, I'd rather "give up flying" then be killed and written off as a mere adjustment on the P&L.

I can say with great confidence I've seen a lot more of these cases play out than you. The reality of it is that the big guy always loses, regardless of who's wrong or right. A grieving widow gets on the stand, a jury made up of people like you say "Well, Lycoming is owned by Textron who can afford a ridiculous amount of money," and the case gets awarded. It doesn't matter that the carb wa manufactured by Precision. I've seen Lycoming sued because an engine was overhauled improperly by an aftermarket shop using PMAd parts. "But Lycoming made it 40 years ago..."

The end result from these cases is that people with bright eyes like you think it will cause problems to be fixed. In the end, it makes the product worse off. Companies can't afford R&D because big daddy whoever is too busy paying lawsuits to consider investment in the company. Suppliers see that if they so much as are seen breathing in the vicinity of parts on a plane that crashes they will be named, and bail. This means all money goes to finding new suppliers, who are few and far between. If lawsuits were going to make planes better, they would have by now. It's only been 40 years with effectively the same designs...

 

[Alexb2000]

Well, you're assuming no harm done, i'm just going by what was posted in the case. Either way, if no harm done, Lycoming will win the appeal and all of this going back and forth is for the birds. If they lose the appeal, then maybe, just maybe, something is inherently wrong at Lycoming and the 26 million dollar judgment is enough to convince them to fix it. In which case others will follow suit to fix/prevent the issue and insurance rates may eventually fall because that risk has been taken out of the market.

IF Lycoming wins on appeal then there is harm done to Lycoming. How many millions in legal fees will they have expended to reach that point?

If they lose the appeal then what should they fix? issue a carb replacement AD for every engine, start manufacturing carburetors so they have more control over them, etc. Then all of the carbed Lycoming owners can raise hell on this board about the ridiculous cost of flying.

Bottom line verdicts of this magnitude hurt aviation.

 

[Ted]

I am reading "Will work for Flying Time" and I am thinking not in my airplane, thinking that since I own an aircraft I must be perceived as being rich. I wouldn't expose my family to the potential lawsuit if something were to happen.

No kidding. Stay away from me, my plane, or anything I own or am involved with.

 

[supernovae]

No kidding. Stay away from me, my plane, or anything I own or am involved with.

I'll head that warning... obviously you don't value life as much as I.

 

[EdFred]

I'll head that warning... obviously you don't value life as much as I.

But I bet he values spelling more than you do.

 

[Ted]

I'll head that warning... obviously you don't value life as much as I.

Obviously I have my head grounded in reality and understand that life is not risk-free.

 

[supernovae]

IF Lycoming wins on appeal then there is harm done to Lycoming. How many millions in legal fees will they have expended to reach that point?

If they lose the appeal then what should they fix? issue a carb replacement AD for every engine, start manufacturing carburetors so they have more control over them, etc. Then all of the carbed Lycoming owners can raise hell on this board about the ridiculous cost of flying.

Bottom line verdicts of this magnitude hurt aviation.

What do you suggest then? That we just turn a blind eye and ignore potential negligence?

 

[supernovae]

Obviously I have my head grounded in reality and understand that life is not risk-free.

So do I..

I'm trying to have a discussion about a lawsuit in a forum message board, you're trying to insult me or attack my character and judgment just because I believe differently than you.

I don't get it.

You're assuming a lot about me.

 

[Alexb2000]

What do you suggest then? That we just turn a blind eye and ignore potential negligence?

Of course not, but look at the situation.

There is NO evidence that the aircraft had engine problems. The pilot was talking with ATC until just a few minutes before the crash and said nothing. The radar tracks do not suggest an engine out. Secondly, there has to be SOME limit to liability. 40 years, ~7,000 airframe hours, several engines the last with 2600 hours, many mechanics, etc, where do you draw the line?

 

[tmyers]

I'll head that warning... obviously you don't value life as much as I.

I was finished with my comments till you crossed a major line with that uninformed comment. How can you even begin to understand how much I value life. How can you begin to understand what I have experienced with the passing of both my mother and my father. How can you begin to understand my views on life when my son puts his life on the line every damn day to defend your right to be an ass with his service n the US Navy.

You sir and your selfish self centered comments are a disgrace to the majority of the pilot family I find myself a part of and can call my friends.

Do not pretend to know me.

 

[EdFred]

Of course not, but look at the situation.

There is NO evidence that the aircraft had engine problems. The pilot was talking with ATC until just a few minutes before the crash and said nothing. The radar tracks do not suggest an engine out. Secondly, there has to be SOME limit to liability. 40 years, ~7,000 airframe hours, several engines the last with 2600 hours, many mechanics, etc, where do you draw the line?

but but but but my mommy says I'm the mostest preciousest thing everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

 

[Ted]

So do I..

I'm trying to have a discussion about a lawsuit in a forum message board, you're trying to insult me or attack my character and judgment just because I believe differently than you.

I don't get it.

You're assuming a lot about me.

Actually I've presented you with a lot of information as someone with knowledge of the industry, which you have ignored.

 

[supernovae]

Of course not, but look at the situation.

There is NO evidence that the aircraft had engine problems. The pilot was talking with ATC until just a few minutes before the crash and said nothing. The radar tracks do not suggest an engine out. Secondly, there has to be SOME limit to liability. 40 years, ~7,000 airframe hours, several engines the last with 2600 hours, many mechanics, etc, where do you draw the line?

Good question! If what you say is true, then on to appeal courts and this whole thing is done and if someone intends to sue Lycoming in the future on such baseless merits then Lycoming can just refer back to this case to set precedence.

Its sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't approach. The system is messy, no doubt, but it does get things done. Obviously Lycoming and their lawyers and representative insurance companies saw the risk of trial to be a lower risk than settlement and maybe they did this to set precedence.. (and so we could all yell stuff on message boards)

companies love that word precedence

 

[supernovae]

Actually I've presented you with a lot of information as someone with knowledge of the industry, which you have ignored.

Actually I haven't ignored anything. You're views are based on the fact you don't want Lycoming to have increased costs due to these lawsuits, mine are based on the case facts as they are and that I understand the value of a legal system, even if it hurts. We're looking at things from completely different angles and yet, your goal is character attacks rather then noticing this difference.

i'd like to think we could have a rational discussion about this. We know your views on the worth of life, and mine, can we get beyond that to talk about aviation?

just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't hear you.

I certainly don't want flying to be more expensive, and just because it is expensive, doesn't mean i'm giving up.. and yes, i'll work to fly.

 

[Alexb2000]

Good question! If what you say is true, then on to appeal courts and this whole thing is done and if someone intends to sue Lycoming in the future on such baseless merits then Lycoming can just refer back to this case to set precedence.

Its sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't approach. The system is messy, no doubt, but it does get things done. Obviously Lycoming and their lawyers and representative insurance companies saw the risk of trial to be a lower risk than settlement and maybe they did this to set precedence.. (and so we could all yell stuff on message boards)

companies love that word precedence

The information I offered is taken directly from the NTSB report, easily checked if you are so inclined.

If you are in the aircraft Widget business and get sued frequently what are your choices?

1. Pay settlements until you can't get insurance and close your doors.
2. Fight every lawsuit until you run out of money and close your doors.
3. Appeal to the government to regulate the liability of your industry so you have a chance to survive.
4. OR sell out to a Chinese company, fire all your U.S. employees, they produce any crap they want, sell to independent U.S. distributors, and laugh about how bullet proof they are to U.S. law.

Aviation companies have done all of the above, although option 4 seems to be the only viable one.

 

[Bob Noel]

How do we know they're not?

BTW, i'm entirely basing my view that the case went to trial and evidence was provided to prove such negligence. If Lycoming wins an appeal, then great, someone didn't get away with negligent death and someone didn't get away with getting rich off a false claim.. (or did they... we may never know)

Yeah, right. Do you have evidence that even just one person on the jury knew enough about the evidence presented to move beyond the Textron-can-afford-a-huge-award mentality?

But let's review some facts

True or false: The engine was operated well beyond TBO.

True or false: The aircraft was flown in less than VMC.

True or false: The engine design has flown for millions of hours of operation. (do you want to claim that there is some not-yet-discovered design defect?)

True or false: the people who are definitely going to get rich are the lawyers no matter what the outcome of any appeals.

True or false: the flight path of the aircraft (as reported by the NTSB report) was consistent with an aircraft with engine problems.

True or false: The flight was operated on an IFR flight plan in IMC.

What is more likely: CFIT because of pilot error or engine trouble?

 

[supernovae]

The information I offered is taken directly from the NTSB report, easily checked if you are so inclined.

If you are in the aircraft Widget business and get sued frequently what are your choices?

1. Pay settlements until you can't get insurance and close your doors.
2. Fight every lawsuit until you run out of money and close your doors.
3. Appeal to the government to regulate the liability of your industry so you have a chance to survive.
4. OR sell out to a Chinese company, fire all your U.S. employees, they produce any crap they want, sell to independent U.S. distributors, and laugh about how bullet proof they are to U.S. law.

Aviation companies have done all of the above, although option 4 seems to be the only viable one.

I understand lawsuits can suck. I think its absurd Microsoft got sued by the EU because they didn't let people choose a web browser ballot and they're paying BILLIONS because of a freaking WEB BROWSER.. Absurd. Agreed, lets not tarnish the whole legal system on these cases now please.

I got sued once, I represented myself, I was able to get on Lexus nexus and find case law and use a prior case to set precedence and the case was dismissed without prejudice and I walked out of court only spending 100 bucks and well, a lot of time.. but oh well, I learned a lot.

Would I love the laws to be slightly different? sure.. Instead of letting one person have 28 million bucks, why not sue into a trust fund so that everyone who purchased said "negligent equipment" then gets the equipment repaired/replaced and done.. sort of like a class action lawsuit but instead of making the lawyers rich, fix the problem and move on.

Every industry is and can be encumbered by the cheesiest of all lawsuits.. I won't even dispute or contend that..

i'm reviewing Textron's financial statements to find out what their risks are now to see just how much lawsuits are hurting their industry but as I've stated before, they seem overly encumbered by salary and retirement costs to their bottom line so much so that lawsuit costs don't even appear on the radar except under general business risks. That's the real reason for the Chinese swing.. costs too much to pay Americans livable wages and retirement.

 

[JeffDG]

Civil cases don't just sue for reward, they sue to punish and influence. If you take away that ability, then civil cases become nothing more of a nuisance to those who can afford to keep them a nuisance.

Using civil cases to punishment is a way to bypass due process.

The criminal system is intended to punish. The civil system is intended to compensate.

By punishing in the civil system, you bypass critical criteria of the criminal system that are required to impose punishment, like jury unanimity, and the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard."

Punitive damages are a perversion of the civil system.

 

[supernovae]

Yeah, right. Do you have evidence that even just one person on the jury knew enough about the evidence presented to move beyond the Textron-can-afford-a-huge-award mentality?

But let's review some facts

True or false: The engine was operated well beyond TBO.

True or false: The aircraft was flown in less than VMC.

True or false: The engine design has flown for millions of hours of operation. (do you want to claim that there is some not-yet-discovered design defect?)

True or false: the people who are definitely going to get rich are the lawyers no matter what the outcome of any appeals.

Have you ever been in a jury? I don't doubt the validity of your claims or questions, but when it comes to product liability or negligence claims someone had to provide enough evidence to suggest the liability is there and enough jurors bought that evidence.

Is it better to assume negligence of our judicial system and peers? Maybe Textron wanted to set precedence and win the case in Appeals all long. I don't know the minds of all involved.

 

[wsuffa]

When you buy a part, about 50% of the cost goes to liability insurance. This is why.

Tort reform would bring prices way, way down. And then the manufacturers would have more money to do R&D. Before long at this rate, experimental will be all we've got in the piston world.

That's a best case scenario. More likely the manufacturer will just stop making the product and we won't even have access to new engines for experimental use. The Feds won't care - only the "rich" can afford to fly so no harm done to most of the population (or the ever-popular "we won't interfere in the free market).

Has anyone resurrected dual mags since Teledyne stopped support?

 

[Bob Noel]

Have you ever been in a jury? I don't doubt the validity of your claims or questions, but when it comes to product liability or negligence claims someone had to provide enough evidence to suggest the liability is there and enough jurors bought that evidence.

Is it better to assume negligence of our judicial system and peers? Maybe Textron wanted to set precedence and win the case in Appeals all long. I don't know the minds of all involved.

Yes. Have you?

Have you ever heard of a jury awarding to the plaintiff because of sympathy in a civil case? naw, never would happen.

This award doesn't pass the giggle test... Blaming Lycoming for a CFIT in IMC when the fight path was consistent with spatial disorientation rather than engine failure.

 

[supernovae]

Using civil cases to punishment is a way to bypass due process.

The criminal system is intended to punish. The civil system is intended to compensate.

By punishing in the civil system, you bypass critical criteria of the criminal system that are required to impose punishment, like jury unanimity, and the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard."

Criminal systems are used

Punitive damages are a perversion of the civil system.

One could argue any way they wish. Criminal offenses also have punitive damages.

But i'd rather keep the civil system unless we want to suggest even civil disputes should be treated with criminal intent.

 

[Skylane81E]

Hell screw all other factors, the engine was not maintained per Lycoming's recommended procedures.

 

[supernovae]

Yes. Have you?

Have you ever heard of a jury awarding to the plaintiff because of sympathy in a civil case? naw, never would happen.

This award doesn't pass the giggle test... Blaming Lycoming for a CFIT in IMC when the fight path was consistent with spatial disorientation rather than engine failure.

I explained one of my jury duties in this very thread.

and nowhere did I mention blaming Lycoming for CFIT.

 

[JeffDG]

One could argue any way they wish. Criminal offenses also have punitive damages.

But i'd rather keep the civil system unless we want to suggest even civil disputes should be treated with criminal intent.

As they should.

The purpose of the criminal system is to punish. Along with that come certain rights of the defendant, like the right to presumption of innocence, the right to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous (in most states) jury.

The civil system has no presumption of innocence, requires a "preponderance of evidence" standard, and a non-unanimous jury. It simply lacks the procedural safeguards necessary to impose punishment.

 

[Bob Noel]

Hell screw all other factors, the engine was not maintained per Lycoming's recommended procedures.

Clearly Lycoming is responsible for not designing an engine that can operate when improperly maintained!

 

[Skylane81E]

Clearly Lycoming is responsible for not designing an engine that can operate when improperly maintained!

However I would like to point out I didn't say it wasn't properly maintained, just that all of Lycoming's data was not followed

 

[Ted]

That's a best case scenario. More likely the manufacturer will just stop making the product and we won't even have access to new engines for experimental use. The Feds won't care - only the "rich" can afford to fly so no harm done to most of the population (or the ever-popular "we won't interfere in the free market).

Has anyone resurrected dual mags since Teledyne stopped support?

If Lycoming and Continental stop building engines, that means more business for ECi and Superior in the experimental world (assuming they keep going) and production of more automotive conversions, etc. Of course, those have a worse safety record, but have the advantage of lacking the same liability as the current big names.

If the FAA responds by allowing more experimental leeway (like owner experimental) this will benefit some of us, but hurt others. More likely it would really screw things up for the certified crowd.

On the other hand, Continental is doing better since selling out to China. So that may save them.

Don't know about the dual mags.

 

[zaitcev]

Has anyone resurrected dual mags since Teledyne stopped support?

I am pretty sure I saw it offered by either E-mag or ElectroAir. Experimental only, of course.

 

[supernovae]

As they should.

The purpose of the criminal system is to punish. Along with that come certain rights of the defendant, like the right to presumption of innocence, the right to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous (in most states) jury.

The civil system has no presumption of innocence, requires a "preponderance of evidence" standard, and a non-unanimous jury. It simply lacks the procedural safeguards necessary to impose punishment.

Criminal courts are for the state to punish you for violation of criminal laws. Civil courts are for civil disputes to either recover monies or pursue damages - however you want to achieve that. I'm not saying its awesome, but i'd sure as hell prefer civil court for dealing with an HOA problem I have than say being faced with a criminal intent for disputing a civil case. You know the HOA is suing me to punish and recover "their costs".. (in a make believe scenario)

Jury requirements vary by state.. same with laws regarding damages.. negligence and criminal negligence. Being that the stated business is international perhaps civil court as the only recourse available for the action.

I'm just spitting this out because I honestly don't know, but it very well could be.

 

[JeffDG]

Criminal courts are for the state to punish you for violation of criminal laws. Civil courts are for civil disputes to either recover monies or pursue damages - however you want to achieve that. I'm not saying its awesome, but i'd sure as hell prefer civil court for dealing with an HOA problem I have than say being faced with a criminal intent for disputing a civil case. You know the HOA is suing me to punish and recover "their costs".. (in a make believe scenario)

Jury requirements vary by state.. same with laws regarding damages.. negligence and criminal negligence. Being that the stated business is international perhaps civil court as the only recourse available for the action.

I'm just spitting this out because I honestly don't know, but it very well could be.

You're absolutely correct about the purposes. If you have a dispute with your HOA, then the civil environment is the appropriate forum for such a dispute. That said, such a case should only involve damages, not punishment.

The civil system is not intended to punish people. It is intended to compensate for damages, to make a wronged person "whole".

Punitive damages are a violation of this principle.

 

[Warrior]

I don't know how foreign carriers do it today but I used to like their approach when there was an accident. The liablilty was not anywhere near what you are going to find in a United States related accident today.

As some of the above posters have said, millions of dollars in compensation isn't going to bring the person back and many studies have shown that a large financial windfall often ruins someone's life.

I think that it is nice that companies like Lycoming are able to help us with our need for engines and parts. The huge liability awards threaten that and I think should be curbed.

 

[PPC1052]

So what are you insured for? If you are really worth more than that, shouldn't you be insuring yourself for what you think you are worth? If you aren't you're just another schmoe with an inflated sense of self worth.

What you are seeing is the cognitive disonance between a liberal's "feelings" and their actions. Don't expect logical consistancy.

 

[supernovae]

You're absolutely correct about the purposes. If you have a dispute with your HOA, then the civil environment is the appropriate forum for such a dispute. That said, such a case should only involve damages, not punishment.

The civil system is not intended to punish people. It is intended to compensate for damages, to make a wronged person "whole".

Punitive damages are a violation of this principle.

I dunno about you, but the HOA's here sue to punish.. it wasn't until a few years ago that the state of texas stepped in and stopped HOA's from taking your HOUSE for whatever violation it was!

either way, even if you want it to be limited to damages, are we willing to put a cap on the damage of a complete loss of life going back to the earlier argument?

no idea.. i'll stop the speculation.

 

[supernovae]

What you are seeing is the cognitive disonance between a liberal's "feelings" and their actions. Don't expect logical consistancy.

I've been pretty consistent, if you're talking about me in this bemusing statement you're completely wrong in your generalization...

Should I attempt some superfluous generalization of you to claim some superior point now? is that what this is all about?

 

[supernovae]

I don't know how foreign carriers do it today but I used to like their approach when there was an accident. The liablilty was not anywhere near what you are going to find in a United States related accident today.

As some of the above posters have said, millions of dollars in compensation isn't going to bring the person back and many studies have shown that a large financial windfall often ruins someone's life.

I think that it is nice that companies like Lycoming are able to help us with our need for engines and parts. The huge liability awards threaten that and I think should be curbed.

I agree 100%..

I just don't want to inverse to be true.. that it becomes an acceptable business risk to have loss of life because we agreed to cap it at a number that favors the negligence rather than the rights of the individual.

And for those pretending to know everything about me, i'm a die hard fan of liberty, individual, life and the pursuit of happiness. I don't believe in any hippy horsecrap or afterlife or anything, my focus is entirely on this one life we got, and it would be a darn shame to lose it for negligence.

but alas, until this case has more fruit to it or makes it through appeals or if I can find a copy of everything on lexis nexus i'm not going to assume anything other then what the jury came to conclude in the mentioned case.

 

[EdFred]

I've been pretty consistent, if you're talking about me in this bemusing statement you're completely wrong in your generalization...

Should I attempt some superfluous generalization of you to claim some superior point now? is that what this is all about?

Consistent in saying you are worth more than you actually are? Yes. You have been consistent. As the saying goes, put up, or shut up. If you really think you are worth 9 or 10 figures, insure yourself for 9 or 10 figures. Anything less has you falling off the fence into the field of hypocrisy.

 

[supernovae]

Consistent in saying you are worth more than you actually are? Yes. You have been consistent. As the saying goes, put up, or shut up. If you really think you are worth 9 or 10 figures, insure yourself for 9 or 10 figures. Anything less has you falling off the fence into the field of hypocrisy.

Look, I see the world differently than you. This isn't about putting up or shutting up or lack of consistency. Its the fact that I see the one life we have as being the most valuable thing in the world that money can't replace.

I don't care how rich or poor you are, what country you live in or any of that. We're all human beings and I respect people for that simple fact.

In the US of A we have a legal system where people can abuse it or they can use it. The inverse is true, we have a system where corporations can use it or they can abuse it.

I think its a terrible abuse of a civilized country to put a monetary cap on the value of a human life, regardless of what you think, regardless of how you quantify it yourself, it is **MY BELIEF**.

I do not IMPOSE this on you. I'm not trying to CONVINCE YOU its a superior belief, but it is one I cherish close to my heart.

When it comes to this case, we're all armchair quarterbacks, how it escalated to 28 million, we simply don't know.

You're playing on the advocate of the Lycoming, I can appreciate that, and I don't dispute that.

I'm playing on the advocate of the legal system.

Neither of us is 100% right.. Lycoming nor the legal system aren't 100% right.. its pointless to bicker about that.

But I will stand by my statements I've been making all along that I think it would be a huge disservice to living, breathing human beings to put a fixed monetary value upon ones life when it comes to seeking punitive damages for either CIVIL or CRIMINAL cases.

If we have a true free market system and if we value our peers and our laws, then the markets will recover and freedom will prevail.

Anything else and we just shoot ourselves in the foot.

my 2 cents.. i'm done.

Hate me all you want.

Loser pays sure, making it tougher for frivolous lawsuits, amen, change tort reform or set precedence on liability, sure.. lets do it.

putting a $$ value on human life in the interest of preserving industry seems like the worst possible solution.

 

[EdFred]

I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you.

You've already said your life is worth more. How much more? Where's the line?