Lycoming hit with $26M verdict!!!

[supernovae]

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?

Oh gee thanks for the concern!

My point is completely oblivious to you, I don't feel the need to explain anymore.

i'll pass on trying to earn my EdFred approval on this one!

 

[EdFred]

Oh gee thanks for the concern!

My point is completely oblivious to you, I don't feel the need to explain anymore.

i'll pass on trying to earn my EdFred approval on this one!

If no amount of money can bring someone back, why award any at all? You can't have it both ways.

 

[steingar]

The suits that Lycoming has lost would both be laughable were it not for the impact on GA. One was CFIT, the other was a misloaded airplane that witnesses said was making full power when it went splat. I'm not kidding about Lycoming needing new lawyers. It shouldn't have been hard to disprove either case, there was no evidence of engine failure in either.

 

[supernovae]

If no amount of money can bring someone back, why award any at all? You can't have it both ways.

To my earlier points I've beat like a dead horse, if there is truly product liability issue or a strong case of negligence then the point of said damages would be to have enough bite to cause change..

but that's just me, I don't know the intent of either side in this case.

Lycoming itself is small, I don't dispute that, but they're part of a multi billion dollar company and while I don't support suing successful companies merely because they're successful (as others may assume by jumping to conclusions), I guess my final point is that if you are a single person representing a deceased person and you want to seek damages for negligent death you do so with enough bite to make sure it doesn't happen again..

that's just my view.. again, disclaimer.. I don't know the intent of the claimant nor the defendant.

I know some people sue for the worst of motives, but for every bad suit there have been ones that have been positive for all so I don't "throw the baby out with the bath water".

 

[supernovae]

I'm posting a link I found about this case, not because I agree or disagree with it, but it shows the angle that the case was prosecuted from and of course/ disclaimer its from another lawyer.

http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2...esults-in-jury-verdict-against-avco-lycoming/

 

[PPC1052]

Juries get presented with "facts" as presented by either side. And as we know lawyers are the most honest group out there, and would never, eeeeeeeever paint things in a way that wasn't completely objective. No, never.

A sure-fire way to lose a case is to lose credibility with the jury by being dishonest. Of course, facts have a way of being susceptible to multiple interpretations, and different jurors will place greater importance on certain facts than other. One jury member will be inclined to find the pilot's fault important, while another will find the big, bad corporation's prior knowledge of failures more important. Sometimes, it just depends on the prejudices of the individuals on the jury panel. You can't always strike all the potential jurors with an anti-corporate bias. But what you don't want to do is to lose all the jury by misleading them. Any decent attorney on the other side will rub your nose in it if you are making up facts, and can't present evidence to support your claims. And with a case like this one, the paper trail is where the case is fought. (After all, no one on the plane survived to tell the jury that they lost power, resulting in the crash.) If a lawyer makes up a "fact," there will be a big blow-up copy of the document proving that claim false sitting in front of the jury during the entire closing argument of the other side. So, the lawyers aren't inclined to tell the jury "facts" that aren't true.

 

[EdFred]

A sure-fire way to lose a case is to lose credibility with the jury by being dishonest. Of course, facts have a way of being susceptible to multiple interpretations, and different jurors will place greater importance on certain facts than other. One jury member will be inclined to find the pilot's fault important, while another will find the big, bad corporation's prior knowledge of failures more important. Sometimes, it just depends on the prejudices of the individuals on the jury panel. You can't always strike all the potential jurors with an anti-corporate bias. But what you don't want to do is to lose all the jury by misleading them. Any decent attorney on the other side will rub your nose in it if you are making up facts, and can't present evidence to support your claims. And with a case like this one, the paper trail is where the case is fought. (After all, no one on the plane survived to tell the jury that they lost power, resulting in the crash.) If a lawyer makes up a "fact," there will be a big blow-up copy of the document proving that claim false sitting in front of the jury during the entire closing argument of the other side. So, the lawyers aren't inclined to tell the jury "facts" that aren't true.

No, but it appears that the "fact" in this case that the pilot is, well was, the cause of the problem seems to be omitted. For me, I don't care if the engine was about ready to explode. If it didn't, it has 0 bearing for me. Trot all the "well maybe this" and "maybe that" possibilities. I don't care what the "what might ofs" were. The pilot flew the plane into the ground, end of story.

 

[PPC1052]

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.

Appeals courts do not re-weigh the evidence. They are generally looking at whether there was reversible error, either in the evidence that was admitted or excluded, or in the instructions to the jury. So your assumption that the court of appeals will fix this whole thing if the jury made an incorrect finding of fact is not true.

 

[MAKG1]

No, but it appears that the "fact" in this case that the pilot is, well was, the cause of the problem seems to be omitted. For me, I don't care if the engine was about ready to explode. If it didn't, it has 0 bearing for me. Trot all the "well maybe this" and "maybe that" possibilities. I don't care what the "what might ofs" were. The pilot flew the plane into the ground, end of story.

And another "fact" appears to be that Lycoming withheld evidence during discovery. That's a crime. That accounts for the punitive damages.

You might make more informed opinions if you didn't jump to conclusions. The fault for the accident is not the only relevant information in this case.

 

[supernovae]

Appeals courts do not re-weigh the evidence. They are generally looking at whether there was reversible error, either in the evidence that was admitted or excluded, or in the instructions to the jury. So your assumption that the court of appeals will fix this whole thing if the jury made an incorrect finding of fact is not true.

An appellate court can

Uphold, or “affirm,” the judgment of the District Court
Reverse, or “vacate,” the judgment of the District Court
Modify the judgment
Tell the District Court to hold further proceedings, known as a “remand”
Dismiss the appeal because it was not properly filed or for another technical reason

so it could be a hardball game for Textron, but honestly, a lot of appellate courts favor businesses, especially if the case they're appealing is a case of lawyers being out for blood and people finally coming to their senses.. but it doesn't sound like Textron even tries.

BTW, Textron / Lycoming sues a lot of its partners / suppliers too.. that's a messy rabbit hole!

 

[PPC1052]

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

I most certainly was, and I don't think that I am wrong that there is no logical consistency.

You state that life is priceless, yet you advocate awarding monetary damages, and you continue to engage in risky activity that places your life at risk. Your beliefs are not consistent with your actions.

The fact of the matter is that while life does not have monetary value (a proposition with which I think you and I both generally agree), we humans everyday behave in ways that shows that we do recognize that life's value has it's limits, and we act in ways that show that we do monetize the value of life. We make cost savings determnations all the time regarding how much safety is enough. If money were no object, there would be no single engine planes, or planes older than three years. But we don't actually spend our money this way at all. When we are making our own financial decisions, we don't always buy every safety feature. We don't always buy the next level of insurance coverage.

 

[supernovae]

You state that life is priceless, yet you advocate awarding monetary damages, and you continue to engage in risky activity that places your life at risk. Your beliefs are not consistent with your actions.

There is a difference between me willingly doing something and causing my own demise than me doing something and dying because of someone else's negligence.

At least I see the distinction.

Is that what this jury saw?

Also, I want to live so I can fly more. But hey, should we turn a blind eye if Lycoming is indeed holding wool over our eyes?

 

[PPC1052]

No, but it appears that the "fact" in this case that the pilot is, well was, the cause of the problem seems to be omitted. For me, I don't care if the engine was about ready to explode. If it didn't, it has 0 bearing for me. Trot all the "well maybe this" and "maybe that" possibilities. I don't care what the "what might ofs" were. The pilot flew the plane into the ground, end of story.

I get what your saying. My point though is often the resolution of a particular case often has more to do with the biases of the jury panel than anything the lawyer says or does, provided that they are reasonably competent. And lying to the jury doesn't really pass the "reasonably competent" standard.

 

[wsuffa]

Just wait until liability suits are permitted/become routine against gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers. At that point, all the arguing in Congress now will be mooted.

 

[iflyblog.com]

I'm posting a link I found about this case, not because I agree or disagree with it, but it shows the angle that the case was prosecuted from and of course/ disclaimer its from another lawyer.

http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2...esults-in-jury-verdict-against-avco-lycoming/

That's not the same case, but alarming in itself. This was a Cherokee 6 on the East Coast, my link describes a 172 in Washington State.

How many times have they been bilked? How many more of these can they endure?

So much for tort reform. I suggest Lyco fire their legal team immediately!

Let me introduce you to your new $100,000.00 4 cylinder!

 

[supernovae]

I get what your saying. My point though is often the resolution of a particular case often has more to do with the biases of the jury panel than anything the lawyer says or does, provided that they are reasonably competent. And lying to the jury doesn't really pass the "reasonably competent" standard.

I agree with everything you've said thus far.. (with the exception of your generalization of me)

I've requested copies of the case from lexus nexus.. will see what juicy details I can find if they have a copy of it.. its probably something abbreviated with the access I have, may just check the state where the case was held.

 

[PPC1052]

An appellate court can

Uphold, or “affirm,” the judgment of the District Court
Reverse, or “vacate,” the judgment of the District Court
Modify the judgment
Tell the District Court to hold further proceedings, known as a “remand”
Dismiss the appeal because it was not properly filed or for another technical reason

Well, yes. But you don't seem to have an understanding as to why they would do any of the above. As I said before, the Court of Appeals is not going to look at the record and say, hmm, we really think on balance we think the evidence is stronger for the defendant, so we reverse the trial court.

 

[PPC1052]

There is a difference between me willingly doing something and causing my own demise than me doing something and dying because of someone else's negligence.

At least I see the distinction.

Is that what this jury saw?

Also, I want to live so I can fly more. But hey, should we turn a blind eye if Lycoming is indeed holding wool over our eyes?

So the value of your life changes depending upon who made the mistake? That doesn't logically follow.

As for your last statement, it bears no resemblence to anything that I have argued, or that I support.

 

[supernovae]

Well, yes. But you don't seem to have an understanding as to why they would do any of the above. As I said before, the Court of Appeals is not going to look at the record and say, hmm, we really think on balance we think the evidence is stronger for the defendant, so we reverse the trial court.

no, they don't do that.. its not a walk in the park, but its to be expected that they can fairly easily get the findings reduced..

 

[PPC1052]

I agree with everything you've said thus far.. (with the exception of your generalization of me)

I've requested copies of the case from lexus nexus.. will see what juicy details I can find if they have a copy of it.. its probably something abbreviated with the access I have, may just check the state where the case was held.

Don't bother. This was jury verdict in a state superior court. Those aren't reported in the case reporters, and if you did find the judgment, all it would say is something to the effect of judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs for $26 Million. There won't be anything interesting to read until the appeals court decions.

Well, on second thought, there is one caveat to the above-- they might have the trial court's docket on line, and there may be some interesting trial briefs summary judgment briefs, or rulings on summary judgment motions. You might be able to find that on Lexus.

 

[supernovae]

So the value of your life changes depending upon who made the mistake? That doesn't logically follow.

What is YOUR value on life if you so don't like mine? Are you inversely implying your life is so invaluable that you take excessive risks and don't care if the products and services you use are negligent and potentially lying to you?

As for your last statement, it bears no resemblence to anything that I have argued, or that I support.

neither is what you're trying to convey..

WHat I SAID is that its much different for me to go down on my own accord, but if someone does something negligent to kill me, the value of my life shouldn't be pre-determined by some adjustor formula or how much insurance I can afford.

I don't even know why I need to explain this.

I guess i'm a sucker for punishment

 

[PPC1052]

no, they don't do that.. its not a walk in the park, but its to be expected that they can fairly easily get the findings reduced..

What do you mean by "get the findings reduced"? A "finding" is a determination of fact. Do you mean to say that it's fairly easy to have the judgment reduced? If so, that is not really typical for court's of appeals to do that. For them to do so, generally there has to be some clear way for the court of appeals to be able to make a determination based on the paper record before them how much the damages should have been. When you are talking about soft damages (like the value of loss of love and affection, etc.), that is not something courts of appeal can do very well. As I eluded to before, courts of appeals are not in the business of finding what the facts are, and that includes the value of damages sustained. It is much more likely that they would be able to get the judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered.

 

[PPC1052]

What is YOUR value on life if you so don't like mine?

Honestly, I don't really know, as I have not tried to do the accounting. But I do voluntarily fly my single engine plane (which has a single Lycoming four cylinder engine, coincidentally), I don't always drive under the speed limit, and I do engage in sports that exposes me to the risk of serious bodily harm and death.

 

[PPC1052]

WHat I SAID is that its much different for me to go down on my own accord, but if someone does something negligent to kill me, the value of my life shouldn't be pre-determined by some adjustor formula or how much insurance I can afford.

That isn't that controversial, and I don't disagree. Where we differ is that you have expressed a bias to stick it to the corporation for huge dollars that really don't make sense in light of the way society actually values life, and you seem to think that life has infinite value. My point is that we as a society do implicitly place a value on life, which can be seen manifested in our decision making, and that is both necessary and okay. Otherwise we wouldn't get anything done because we would always be adding additional screws*, or saftey devices

Frankly, I don't even know that $26 million is out of line for these particular individuals. So, I am not even really commenting on the size of the judgment. If that guy pulled down $1.0 a year, and had a work life expectancy of 25 years, theres $25 million right there. But the idea that because something is a corporation, it must be punished mercilessly is, in my opinion, wrong and harmful to our society.

*This refers to the "one screw bad, two screws good" claim, which is essentially the argument of plaintiffs' attorneys that the proper number of safety devices is always one more than there actually was in place. For example, I had a products case alleging a stool that collapsed was defectively designed after the screw fell out. "If only there had been two screws, this accident wouldn't have happened!"

 

[schmookeeg]

To my earlier points I've beat like a dead horse, if there is truly product liability issue or a strong case of negligence then the point of said damages would be to have enough bite to cause change..

How about these judgement monies are used to fund an award for a "better design" to solve the punished problem? Anyone but the defendant can apply to win these R&D monies for a more successful design.

1. Defendant is punished
2. Plaintiff gets their "pound of flesh" - legal fees not paid by this judgement. Their deceased's life insurance can pay for this righteous action.
3. Meritorious cases need only apply due to above.

 

[supernovae]

That isn't that controversial, and I don't disagree. Where we differ is that you have expressed a bias to stick it to the corporation for huge dollars that really don't make sense in light of the way society actually values life, and you seem to think that life has infinite value.

That was never my intention. In fact, I clarified that several times. I was merely trying to say that if we cap deaths at 150k or 300k or some other number relative to our own monetary worth, we're doing ourselves a huge disservice.

Frankly, I don't even know that $26 million is out of line for these particular individuals. So, I am not even really commenting on the size of the judgment. If that guy pulled down $1.0 a year, and had a work life expectancy of 25 years, theres $25 million right there. But the idea that because something is a corporation, it must be punished mercilessly is, in my opinion, wrong and harmful to our society.

Agreed, i'm in no shape form or fashion saying punish them because they're a corporation.

I was saying that the amount sounds HUGE because they are a HUGE corporation and the two reflect each other. If the amount were a pittance it would under value the lives lost. (that I apparently value too much)

its an impossible thing to explain in a forum where people are replying over people.

yes, I think life is the greatest thing ever and there is no price for it. I don't think people should sue for a windfall, but if they do sue, it should be on the basis they have a strong case and if the case is strong enough to support punitive damages, those damages should be strong enough to cause action. And while Lycoming is a small arm of Textron, it is an arm of a HUGE business doing lots of sales globally.

Keep on flying!

(btw, the traumahawks in train in are Lycoming too.. )

 

[supernovae]

How about these judgement monies are used to fund an award for a "better design" to solve the punished problem? Anyone but the defendant can apply to win these R&D monies for a more successful design.

1. Defendant is punished
2. Plaintiff gets their "pound of flesh" - legal fees not paid by this judgement. Their deceased's life insurance can pay for this righteous action.
3. Meritorious cases need only apply due to above.

Sounds great to me! I mentioned something similar earlier, a revamp of class action type suits so that the proceeds go into a trust to rectify the findings of the court and help alleviate future cases/damages.

 

[JeffDG]

I was saying that the amount sounds HUGE because they are a HUGE corporation and the two reflect each other. If the amount were a pittance it would under value the lives lost. (that I apparently value too much)

That should have precisely zero to do with damages. The size of the defendant is not a factor in the amount of damages that the plaintiff suffered.

Is the loss greater if a person is run over by an investment banker than if they're run over by a teacher?

 

[kyleb]

I was in the waiting pool. But I already know what I have to say to get dismissed from jury duty. One of the two sides will want me dismissed, guaranteed. Sorry, I'm not sitting a courtroom to get "paid" less than what it costs me in gas and parking.

And therein lies part of the problem. If intelligent, rational people intentionally get themselves excluded from the jury, I don't see how they can complain when the watered down pool comes up with a bad result.

 

[PPC1052]

Agreed, i'm in no shape form or fashion saying punish them because they're a corporation.

I was saying that the amount sounds HUGE because they are a HUGE corporation and the two reflect each other.

These two statements are incongruous, and, I think, prove me correct in my assessment of your opinion.

Damages should reflect the harm caused, not the size of the defendant.

 

[EdFred]

And another "fact" appears to be that Lycoming withheld evidence during discovery. That's a crime. That accounts for the punitive damages.

You might make more informed opinions if you didn't jump to conclusions. The fault for the accident is not the only relevant information in this case.

And the estates of the "victims" are entitled to any of that money why? That's a completely separate issue that has ZERO to do with the deaths of the pilot and passenger. Z-E-R-O. That's a case for the state/feds to bring against Lycoming, not the sue-everyone-who-might-possibly-be-involved ambulance chasers and lottery winners.

 

[EdFred]

Damages should reflect the harm caused, not the size of the defendant.

In which case an amount should be determined on what a human life is worth - minimum(crack junkie) and maximum (insert altruistic example here). Which I would advocate 100%.

Although I could even see some cases where if the deceased was actually a burden on the system, the award could be in the defendant's favor for relieving the public of an undue burden.

 

[Ted]

Just wait until liability suits are permitted/become routine against gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers. At that point, all the arguing in Congress now will be mooted.

That'll be a much harder one to accomplish, I think. The majority of the public doesn't care about airplanes, but does care about guns.

Conversely, you put a grieving widow in front of a jury about how she doesn't know how she'll go on without her husband, and that jury sees their chance to do for her what they'd want done if they died - steal what they can from the big corporations.

Yep, works great until they get a dose of what goes around comes around, their company gets sued frivolously, and they're without jobs.

That's not the same case, but alarming in itself. This was a Cherokee 6 on the East Coast, my link describes a 172 in Washington State.

How many times have they been bilked? How many more of these can they endure?

So much for tort reform. I suggest Lyco fire their legal team immediately!

Let me introduce you to your new $100,000.00 4 cylinder!

The big issue that would've made this case a non-starter (along with most of the other big lawsuits) would be the same tort reform that the airframers got. That reform didn't apply to engine manufacturers, and often the engine maker gets attacked when a supplier folds. Someone mentioned that for Cessna, liability is 25% of a part cost. That's roughly half of liability for the engine makers. So let's say the results were more or less the same (which would be rational) - that means engines and parts would cost 25% less, or that 25% could be used to fund new products. Hey, what a concept.

 

[Sleepingsquirrel]

Well, the good part is when supernovae gets priced out of aviation due to his own feelings on law suits, he won't be able to crash and perpetuate the problem.

...and who in their right mind would invite him to ride with them?

By the way I've decided I need an airplane from a different company, it's not likely my survivors will get bupkis from Mooney.

 

[Ted]

...and who in their right mind would invite him to ride with them?

As I've said, certainly not me. And I'm someone who doesn't turn away many would-be passengers.

By the way I've decided I need an airplane from a different company, it's not likely my survivors will get bupkis from Mooney.

Make sure it's new enough. Unlike the engine manufacturers, there are tort limits for airframers. Beechcraft is probably your best bet.

 

[supernovae]

...and who in their right mind would invite him to ride with them?

When this thread originally started, I was being slightly silly with my claim of being worth billions and billions.. I'm a science nut, its a Carl Sagan thing.. anyways, I do value life, maybe we all have differing views or opinions, but this is the first time in internet history for me to have two people claim to know me so well whom have never I've never meet before make such a statement.

I've never come across it before, and its quite.. odd..

Enjoy not flying with me if that is indeed your wish, I'll just be out flying with people who aren't so judgmental.

Life is too short to worry about silly internet debates, its been real!

 

[gismo]

"Loser Pays" would solve most of these problems.

-Rich

I think it's time a bunch of pilots (or aviation alphabet organizations) to file a class action against the lawyers and plaintiffs in some of these cases claiming that such erroneous suits hurt us financially.

 

[Dav8or]

...and who in their right mind would invite him to ride with them?

By the way I've decided I need an airplane from a different company, it's not likely my survivors will get bupkis from Mooney.

...but apparently, they will from Lycoming, er... uh... I mean the evil big Textron.

 

[Dav8or]

Keep on flying!

Not a whole lot longer the way things are going. Lawsuits are a big part of why soon there will be very little flying. Have you not noticed that there have been many, many lawsuits and they have done nothing to make flying safer, or promote more flying?? In fact the opposite. Companies have either quit altogether, or they have given up the idea of bringing new technologies to market because there may be a flaw they don't know of yet that will cost them the company.

(btw, the traumahawks in train in are Lycoming too.. )

I then trust you have instructed your family to go for the gold should you ever get low, slow and cross controlled. It is well known that Piper once produced and airframe with a flaw and Lycoming produces engines with flawed carburetors. Your Tomahawk engine has as much in common with the Cherokee 6 engine in the link you provided as does the Skyhawk engine in this thread. They are all made by Lycoming with a third party carburetor and backed by a company with billion$$$ of dollars.

 

[Sleepingsquirrel]

.......Yeah well, I don't want to die because of someone elses negligence and if I do die, I hope my wife and children sue for as much as possible because to me, life is worth more than 26 million dollars, especially if it was someone else's negligence...........

You are correct, I do not know you, but this is all I need to know. Why would I let anyone in my airplane , car, boat, home, life knowing this about them?

Neglilgence can be proven many ways:
1. I made 50 takeoffs and landings(witnessed) in the last 90 days, didn't make a log entry.
2. I have 15 PFDs on board , but didn't show how to put them on.
3. I didn't make my passenger put on his seat belt.
4. Next door neighbor's dog attacks visitor in my front yard, I should
have put up a fence.

on and on and on.