Lycoming hit with $26M verdict!!!

supernovae said:
...............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.. )
Click to expand...


Hmmmm.. So , you knowingly and willfully strap your billion dollar ass into a plane you publically call. a ( TRAUMAHAWK) and then have the balls to stand up for a idiotic pilot who flew into a mountian.:dunno::dunno::dunno:.

Your wife and kids must be really proud of their billion dollar daddy..:redface::nono:

Ps.. Try to drink a little less of the Kool-aid ...............buddy.;)
 
gismo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would absolutely contribute to this cause. Who wants to organize it?
 
supernovae said:
Enjoy not flying with me if that is indeed your wish, I'll just be out flying with people who aren't so judgmental.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's more that I don't want your family suing my family if a wing falls off. I don't worry about that with most people, but given your statements it's a reasonable assumption to worry about it from you.
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmm.. So , you knowingly and willfully strap your billion dollar ass into a plane you publically call. a ( TRAUMAHAWK) and then have the balls to stand up for a idiotic pilot who flew into a mountian.:dunno::dunno::dunno:.
Click to expand...

I was standing up for the legal system, I never put a defense down for anything else.

Your wife and kids must be really proud of their billion dollar daddy..:redface::nono:
Click to expand...

They are!

Ps.. Try to drink a little less of the Kool-aid ...............buddy.;)
Click to expand...

I don't drink Kool-Aid, its got too much sugar, bad for your teeth. Need to keep my billion billion dollar smile :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Maybe it's more that I don't want your family suing my family if a wing falls off. I don't worry about that with most people, but given your statements it's a reasonable assumption to worry about it from you.
Click to expand...

Just because I respect our legal system, doesn't mean I will abuse it or use it against my friends and peers.

My friends generally trust me because they know I geek out to this stuff. When I look at an aircraft I do research the history, AD's, reported problems and manufacturer defects.. you can't know them all, never claim to have such ability but the people that trust me, do so, because I geek out to this stuff and learn everything I can about it.

My entire point I was trying to make was not to offend anyone, make aviation more expensive or any of that but to justify my view that a human life should not be capped at any particular value and that the legal system as used and abused as it is, does work. Lycoming uses it to sue others to protect its rights as others have the right to sue them.

obviously to lycomings discredit, lawyers are out for blood on this carb issue as there are multiple cases with huge punitive damage sums and I can't find squat on lexus nexus to see what the stated claims actually are and which docs were withheld.

maybe I should second guess flying anything they make
 
supernovae said:
Just because I respect our legal system, doesn't mean I will abuse it or use it against my friends and peers.

My friends generally trust me because they know I geek out to this stuff. When I look at an aircraft I do research the history, AD's, reported problems and manufacturer defects.. you can't know them all, never claim to have such ability but the people that trust me, do so, because I geek out to this stuff and learn everything I can about it.

My entire point I was trying to make was not to offend anyone, make aviation more expensive or any of that but to justify my view that a human life should not be capped at any particular value and that the legal system as used and abused as it is, does work. Lycoming uses it to sue others to protect its rights as others have the right to sue them.

obviously to lycomings discredit, lawyers are out for blood on this carb issue as there are multiple cases with huge punitive damage sums and I can't find squat on lexus nexus to see what the stated claims actually are and which docs were withheld.

maybe I should second guess flying anything they make
Click to expand...

And there's your disconnect with reality. Those who have been around the aviation legal system know it's heavily biased against manufacturers to the detriment of the rest of us.

But saying you should second guess flying anything made by Lycoming, Continental, Rotax, or anything at all, sounds like a good move given your views.

You're new to aviation, so you haven't seen what the rest of us have. That's fine, but as the sole dissenter, maybe that should tell you something...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And there's your disconnect with reality. Those who have been around the aviation legal system know it's heavily biased against manufacturers to the detriment of the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Lawsuits are attributed to costs, not denying that, there is NO industry which is an exception to this rule. Does Lycoming, Continental or Rotax publish their legal costs? Lycoming is part of Textron and I've scoured their financial statements and to them their labor and retirement costs are their biggest risks, legal actions show up as a 3 sentence line item after pages and pages talking about the burden of healthcare and retirement and employee salaries.

But saying you should second guess flying anything made by Lycoming, Continental, Rotax, or anything at all, sounds like a good move given your views.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was specific to the case of Lycoming, I have no problems with Rotax, Continental, Jab et all. In fact, I still have this glimmer of hope that should one mfr go out of business, the "free markets" will come in, swoop into the market and take over. The real problem aviation may face may be the fact there is no free market, we're dominated by two huge corporations (or corporate backed businesses) that may actually like this hot legal atmosphere as it sure keeps others from trying to encroach.

You're new to aviation, so you haven't seen what the rest of us have. That's fine, but as the sole dissenter, maybe that should tell you something...
Click to expand...

It may be a lonely and dead end road, but i'd rather use my critical thinking skills and look at everything from all angles and at least attempt to make a logical decision.. I'm sometimes stubborn like that, but its worked fairly well for me even if it means a little egg on my face.
 
I'm still waiting for any kind of logical explanation as to why the size of the defendant makes one whit of difference as to the damages suffered by a plaintiff.
 
supernovae said:
In fact, I still have this glimmer of hope that should one mfr go out of business, the "free markets" will come in, swoop into the market and take over.
Click to expand...


How pretty is the purple and green sky in your world? The reason no one is going to come in should one go under, is because people like you advocate suing the hell out of everyone when you, as the pilot, do something stupid. Sounds like a great business plan. Let's get into a business where 12 idiots decide that even though our product had nothing to do with an accident we are liable for millions of dollars.
 
JeffDG said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of logical explanation as to why the size of the defendant makes one whit of difference as to the damages suffered by a plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Because all corporations are evil and should be abolished by any means necessary.
 
JeffDG said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of logical explanation as to why the size of the defendant makes one whit of difference as to the damages suffered by a plaintiff.
Click to expand...

I think it is called spreading the wealth.
 
JeffDG said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of logical explanation as to why the size of the defendant makes one whit of difference as to the damages suffered by a plaintiff.
Click to expand...

If you don't have the ability to sue for an amount that is punitive then what good is the legal system against defendants who can just afford to operate with impunity?
 
EdFred said:
How pretty is the purple and green sky in your world? The reason no one is going to come in should one go under, is because people like you advocate suing the hell out of everyone when you, as the pilot, do something stupid. Sounds like a great business plan. Let's get into a business where 12 idiots decide that even though our product had nothing to do with an accident we are liable for millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

Why are you making stuff up? I never said anything of the sorts. You're assuming you have knowledge of everything and you're assuming those 12 people were stupid and you're assuming you know the case and you're assuming you have an idea of what i'm saying while completely ignoring anything and everything I've said.

I'll ask it again, how DO you know everything about the case? how do you know those 12 jurors are stupid? Do you have evidence that Lycoming was not withholding facts from the case? Please explain yourself.
 
Last edited:
supernovae said:
If you don't have the ability to sue for an amount that is punitive then what good is the legal system against defendants who can just afford to operate with impunity?
Click to expand...

As I've been saying, if they deserve punishment, that's a criminal matter.

The civil system is for compensation for damages.
 
supernovae said:
Actually, I was specific to the case of Lycoming, I have no problems with Rotax, Continental, Jab et all. In fact, I still have this glimmer of hope that should one mfr go out of business, the "free markets" will come in, swoop into the market and take over. The real problem aviation may face may be the fact there is no free market, we're dominated by two huge corporations (or corporate backed businesses) that may actually like this hot legal atmosphere as it sure keeps others from trying to encroach.
Click to expand...

Look at the John Denver crash, the fuel valve manufacturer who's product was functioning 100% correctly settled with the family. Now this case, which also has absolutely no merit since the engine was running. Who wants to get into an industry where HUGE verdicts are the norm even when your product was working 100% just as intended? How do you defend against that?

I believe soon we will see many more suits involving experimental aircraft. They are becoming large enough targets and the wolves are watching.

The only "free market" we are likely to see is chinese products made with zero fear of product liability. Who wants to fly behind those? Not me.
 
EdFred said:
You most certainly did.
Click to expand...

yeah, I love the fact you cherry pick and exclude the part where I explain in great detail that if there was negligence involved I hope my wife sues.

are you saying that if something happens to you or your loved ones, you wouldn't pursue legal actions in the court? especially if you found out the defendant was withholding evidence?
 
Alexb2000 said:
Look at the John Denver crash, the fuel valve manufacturer who's product was functioning 100% correctly settled with the family. Now this case, which also has absolutely no merit since the engine was running. Who wants to get into an industry where HUGE verdicts are the norm even when your product was working 100% just as intended? How do you defend against that?

I believe soon we will see many more suits involving experimental aircraft. They are becoming large enough targets and the wolves are watching.

The only "free market" we are likely to see is chinese products made with zero fear of product liability. Who wants to fly behind those? Not me.
Click to expand...

The Chinese product isn't free from liability, its just free from being encumbered by US labor costs..

I don't know anything about the Denver case to speak on its behalf.
 
JeffDG said:
As I've been saying, if they deserve punishment, that's a criminal matter.

The civil system is for compensation for damages.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we know where we both stand.

With that being said, if you sue someone in civil court, who then determines if there is criminal action? Do we just create more laws? Would the state still not seek punitive damages that meet or exceed the punitive damages of a civilian case? again, without such punitive scales, businesses would be able to operate "above the law" as it would be cheaper to pay and walk than to face the wrath of civilian law.

just because I bring this stuff up, doesn't mean I support one specific way over another, it just has to be said.
 
Alexb2000 said:
OK this is getting silly, Chinese product liability is a punch line.
Click to expand...

?

I know their not known for being reliable, but punch line or not, are we trying to completely derail this discussion or what? Facing the music the real costs for offshoring are labor, not liability.. if Chinese companies make airplanes that suck and kill people they won't be around either. Replace china with whatever cheap labor country you want.
 
When you find yourself in a deep hole, the best strategy is to stop digging.
supernovae said:
Ok, so we know where we both stand.

With that being said, if you sue someone in civil court, who then determines if there is criminal action? Do we just create more laws? Would the state still not seek punitive damages that meet or exceed the punitive damages of a civilian case? again, without such punitive scales, businesses would be able to operate "above the law" as it would be cheaper to pay and walk than to face the wrath of civilian law.

just because I bring this stuff up, doesn't mean I support one specific way over another, it just has to be said.
Click to expand...
 
supernovae said:
yeah, I love the fact you cherry pick and exclude the part where I explain in great detail that if there was negligence involved I hope my wife sues.

are you saying that if something happens to you or your loved ones, you wouldn't pursue legal actions in the court? especially if you found out the defendant was withholding evidence?
Click to expand...

If I (or my dad ) fly ourselves into the ground, and it's my/his own damn fault - AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE - my family better not be suing anyone. I sure as hell won't be. Again, the carburetor had absolutely ZERO, Z-E-R-O, to do with the pilot flying their stupid ass into the ground. I will most certainly not sue. The "evidence" that was being with held had nothing to do with the crash. So, no I would not.
 
EdFred said:
If I (or my dad ) fly ourselves into the ground, and it's my/his own damn fault - AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE - my family better not be suing anyone. I sure as hell won't be. Again, the carburetor had absolutely ZERO, Z-E-R-O, to do with the pilot flying their stupid ass into the ground. I will most certainly not sue. The "evidence" that was being with held had nothing to do with the crash. So, no I would not.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to know all the facts of this case, I can't find it in lexus nexus, I can only assume now that you know everything as you claim to do.

Even if you know everything, I too wouldn't sue of it was my mistake that I crashed into a mountain. I never claimed such. I only stated 1. that I value life more than a cap would value it or insurance would 2. that if there was negligence that resulted in my death I would want the ability to sue to be preserved and not capped at some artificial limit that preserved impunity over punitive damages for said negligence.

The rest, was all blown out of proportion when people jumped on me for my person views of life.
 
supernovae said:
The Chinese product isn't free from liability, its just free from being encumbered by US labor costs..
Click to expand...

Sure, you can get a judgment. Good luck trying to collect on it.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
Sure, you can get a judgment. Good luke trying to collect on it.
Click to expand...

If there is a negligence case that forces said company out of US markets then i'd say problem solved, right?

China and EU have insanely huge trade agreements but the EU certainly doesn't bow down to liability issues.. I'm not sure China as a hole would be so quick to ruin such trade with the US either..

but i'm no china expert either..
 
supernovae said:
If there is a negligence case that forces said company out of US markets then i'd say problem solved, right?

China and EU have insanely huge trade agreements but the EU certainly doesn't bow down to liability issues.. I'm not sure China as a hole would be so quick to ruin such trade with the US either..

but i'm no china expert either..
Click to expand...

I'm trying not to giggle too much.

First of all, it's not going to force the company out of US markets.

As far as China respecting our tort law in order to preserve trade? No.

Did you know that it is essentially a criminal offense for to take a deposition in China?

Just spend some time googling how to sue a Chinese company, and come back here and tell us what you find.
 
JeffDG said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of logical explanation as to why the size of the defendant makes one whit of difference as to the damages suffered by a plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Assuming for a second that the intent to make them hurt over the issue is ok...

What hurts you or me wouldn't hurt a large corporation. Couple hundred grand an I'm screwed, royally. Fine textron even half a mil and they would likely consider it part of the cost of doing business.
 
Skylane81E said:
Assuming for a second that the intent to make them hurt over the issue is ok...

What hurts you or me wouldn't hurt a large corporation. Couple hundred grand an I'm screwed, royally. Fine textron even half a mil and they would likely consider it part of the cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

So why is someone's life "worth" more if cause of death is cause by an entity with more money?
 
supernovae said:
Ok, so we know where we both stand.

With that being said, if you sue someone in civil court, who then determines if there is criminal action? Do we just create more laws? Would the state still not seek punitive damages that meet or exceed the punitive damages of a civilian case? again, without such punitive scales, businesses would be able to operate "above the law" as it would be cheaper to pay and walk than to face the wrath of civilian law.

just because I bring this stuff up, doesn't mean I support one specific way over another, it just has to be said.
Click to expand...

We already have criminal laws on the books. Lots of them. The average person commits 3 felonies a day as a matter of fact.

"Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord.", well in the criminal system, exacting punishment is the purview of the state, not the individual.

States don't seek "punitive damages", they seek "fines" and "jail time". The difference is, that to impose punishment, you need to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. Punitive damages bypass all the due process rights that defendants should enjoy.
 
Skylane81E said:
Assuming for a second that the intent to make them hurt over the issue is ok...

What hurts you or me wouldn't hurt a large corporation. Couple hundred grand an I'm screwed, royally. Fine textron even half a mil and they would likely consider it part of the cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

And that's my point.

The purpose of the civil system is to compensate people for losses suffered.

The purpose of the criminal system is to punish people for conduct that society deems abhorrent.

Using the civil system to punish is both a violation of due process, and indeed smacks of vigilantism.
 
EdFred said:
So why is someone's life "worth" more if cause of death is cause by an entity with more money?
Click to expand...

It isn't, you must first accept the assumption I stated for it to work.

And no, I'm not saying you should accept it.
 
JeffDG said:
And that's my point.

The purpose of the civil system is to compensate people for losses suffered.

The purpose of the criminal system is to punish people for conduct that society deems abhorrent.
Click to expand...

For good or ill that isn't currently how it works
 
Skylane81E said:
For good or ill that isn't currently how it works
Click to expand...

Don't make it right.

I keep forgetting the worst due process violation of punitive damages: In order to punish someone under criminal law, they must violate a law in place when the act (or omission) occurred. That's the point of the "ex post facto" clause in the Constitution.

Under the "common law", new law is created for cases by the judges after the fact...OK, legal folks will say that the common law is "discovered", not "created", but you can have punitive damages assessed for something that nobody knew was illegal at the time it occurred.
 
JeffDG said:
Don't make it right.
Click to expand...

Never said it did, but the truth is I understand punitive damages, however I wouldn't argue at all with setting the standards for applying them to match what you find in criminal court.

So for a basic example a jury that finds for the plaintiff by simple majority can not award punitive damages
 
PPC1052 said:
I'm trying not to giggle too much.

First of all, it's not going to force the company out of US markets.

As far as China respecting our tort law in order to preserve trade? No.

Did you know that it is essentially a criminal offense for to take a deposition in China?

Just spend some time googling how to sue a Chinese company, and come back here and tell us what you find.
Click to expand...

We're not talking baby toys and plastic game prizes here, were talking about certified aircraft or aircraft components. Just because its Chinese doesn't mean they don't have to meet or exceed faa certification requirements.

So with that said, sure, you could sue, get a default judgment and never get paid by a foreign company but in such a circumstance you could go after their assets that they do have in the usa.. if its negligence or criminal negligence in sure a good lawyer could go after type ratings and other certifications if it came down to it and some company wanted to play lose and nasty.. but lets be real, for the most part its us companies outsourcing to china, not Chinese companies dealing direct.. and they're outsourcing due to labor costs, not liability.. liability is often the best reason and strongest advocate of insourcing, complete authority and control.
 
Last edited:
supernovae said:
We're not talking baby toys and plastic game prizes here, were talking about certified aircraft or aircraft components. Just because its Chinese doesn't mean they don't have to meet or exceed faa certification requirements.

So with that said, sure, you could sue, get a default judgment and never get paid by a foreign company but in such a circumstance you could go after their assets that they do have in the usa.. if its negligence or criminal negligence in sure a good lawyer could go after type ratings and other certifications if it came down to it and some company wanted to play lose and nasty.. but lets be real, for the most part its us companies outsourcing to china, not Chinese companies dealing direct.. and they're outsourcing due to labor costs, not liability.. liability is often the best reason and strongest advocate of insourcing, complete authority and control.
Click to expand...


Roflcopter.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top