You do not strike me as stupid, but I do not believe you have enough real world knowledge of litigation, or you wouldn't state the above. It's okay though. There are plenty of other worth while avocations. Not being an overly exposed to the legal system doesn't make one stupid, or worthless.
hehe, thanks.. I don't claim to be a lawyer. all though I did self represent myself in a civil case vs a bank and I won. The bank was searching for a default judgment to collect on assets I never had.
I've read about judgments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments just for this topic and tried researching the lawsuits of foreign companies with US interests..
But lest we play hide-the-ball too much, let's put this back in context. The Lycoming engine and carburator at issue in the underlying suit was FAA certified, yet the pilot and occupants are still dead, and Lycoming was still held liable. So, certification obviously isn't the protection that you seek, and is a red herring to our discussion.
Of course its a red herring to getting back onto topic, I wasn't the one that opened the Chinese can of worms, that was someone else. I was mostly making the obvious statement that simply selling a product from china doesn't remove you from the liability of said product..
This conversation was about holding the companies liable, in tort, for damages resulting from an accident, as well as punishing them with punitive damages. We have had some discussions about whether the system if fair and/or counter-productive. Others pointed out that the costs were driving American manufacturers out, and shifting what production there is to China. My point was that driving the manufacturers to China is not going to further your goal of establishing tort law accountability.
Agreed! 100%.. I made the same statement, I also embellished it by stating factually that tort reform isn't forcing industry over seas, labor is.
I work for a biotech right now, we make our products in house and sell to china amongst other nations. We make the product here because liability and reliability is paramount to success, thus we insource and don't see opportunity costs for outsourcing, risk is too high.. seems like that could parallel aviation industry. But the manufacturing labor we have is a small cost, our labor is all R&D, again something not necessarily worth of outsourcing. I dunno what my point is anymore.. I think i'm just trying to step back to earlier points that again, were sidetracks from the original discussion
FAA certfication is irrelevant to that discussion. The rest of what you say about collecting on a judgment against a Chinese corporation bears no resemblence to reality. The practical effect is that no plaintiff's attorney is going to take the case if their only possible avenue of recovery is some Chinese manufacturer, and even if they do, the poor plaintiff is not likely to ever see a dime.
Right, but my point still remains that even if you don't see a dime, it would mean that business is choosing to default on a judgment and would probably not be in business, ergo solving the removal of stated products from the market to prevent further negligence.
I don't support ambulance chasers and the concept of suing just because you can.. i'm not interested in ruining someone else's livelihood for revenge or anything such. I would just expect my surviving members to fight to prevent other incidence of negligence if negligence is indeed at play.
If I crash into a mountain, so be it. IF I get ran over on the way to work while riding my road bike, so bet it.
Somewhere early on this discussion got really heated when people said tort reform is putting a $$ on the cost of life and some felt that should be adjusted per ones net worth or insurability.. I barfed in the mouth a little hearing that and maybe I took the rest of this too far and dug a hole as others have said, but i'll stand by what I have been saying.
If its a false case, misrepresented or a bad claim, fight it in appeals and end it.. I don't think it really has anything to do with actually CFIT, its the fact a lawyer caught wind of a loophole and went for blood and apparently there are multiple similar questions and cases presented which seem to indicate a rather poor business pattern on behalf of Lycoming. If its fixed/addressed and we can move on, so be it.
And, I don't think anyone is stupid either
we're looking at things from unique perspectives where the answer is none of us are absolutely wrong or right, we can address the costs of aviation in many ways and I honestly believe a lot of people are blowing litigation costs out of the water for the costs they reflect back to us as a consumer.
I think the litigation represents the RISKS we take and even though I said i'm worth a billion billion of whatever dollar you trade with, the fact is, I'd just rather go on my own accord, my own mistakes or my own ill demise, rather than at the mercy of negligence..
but to be brutally honest, after researching many a public aviation company and seeing how much labor/retirement hurts and how much certification costs and how much currency in certification/testing/trials/maintenance thereof and the complete lack of sales of new aircraft and aircraft engines, there are a billion reasons aviation is getting expensive.
And when you do a balance sheet on your aircraft, the engine reserve is a fraction of the operating costs, fuel costs, insurance costs, hanger costs, annual costs that its almost not at play..
I want things to be more affordable.. that's why I was running around with a sig that said "will work to fly" and that's why i'm looking at LSA type aircraft because I know a twin is out of the picture for me, not because of Lycoming but because of Fuel and hanger space and insurance premiums in hull value, not necessarily liability..
but alas, thanks for the discussion.
Sounds like it went above and beyond. How come this "fatal flaw" didn't rear it's ugly head in the last 36 years and 10,000 hours? 
.
