Lycoming hit with $26M verdict!!!
- Thread starter iflyblog.com
- Start date
Wait. Because we didn't fly VFR in IMC, resulting in CFIT, we can't question the justice of the result?
No, Lycoming was not found to be negligent. The court instructed the jury that the product was defective, and that defect caused the Plaintiffs' damages as a discovery abuse sanction. The only finding was the value of those damages.
As I said before, I think this sanction was too harsh. Sure, if you abuse the system, you get sanctioned. In this case, the evidence withheld went to the issue of the existence of a defect. If the court wanted to simply direct the jury on that issue only, I wouldn't really second guess that. But there was no explanation how the withheld documents addressed, or in any way impaired, the plaintiffs' ability to prove that the accident had anything to do with the alleged defect.
Last edited:
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
Did you find the case & court documents? From the article it sounds like they were some how able to prove a poor design that was known to be poor.. I don't have the specific to this case, but there are multiple cases based on the carb..
What would you call it if Lycoming was indeed allowing a bad design to live on? (again, none of us having the specifics unless you have something to share I haven't been able to find yet).. isn't that.. negligence?
edit: sounds to me like the lawyers took the 2010 case and ran with it.. previously discussed here in the 89 million dollar settlement, which I don't know if that was appealed or not.
Last edited:
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
You're assuming expert knowledge and applying your own beliefs of justice. I'm not saying that is wrong or right, that's entirely within reason of ones views and you're entitled to your own opinion.
Maybe, just maybe, he CFIT because of the problems.. I mean, if the engine does fail and you're over inhospitable train, it may very well look like you just crashed. I don't know, can't claim to know and won't base my views of this incident on claiming to know. We're tossing out so many variables and so many different points here now its impossible to track.
Does tort reform me to you, you're dead, get over it? If this pilot were to survive the incident with injury and speak on his own behalf, would that change your view thereof?
That reminds me, it would be interesting to research lawsuits for those that have survived.. does anyone track such metrics or is it usually only these big payouts for deceased victims?
I found the Court's sanctioning order in the link posted above to the news article discussing the correct case.
Nope. Not true. At least, the Plaintiffs didn't have to prove the existence of a defect-- the court instructed the jury that it was defective, and took that issue away from them.
It depends. What do you mean by bad? Some designs are better than others, but that doesn't mean the lesser design is defective and unreasonably dangerous-- the standard usually necessary to prove the existence of a product defect. Also, many states, mine included, have a statute of repose that recognize that products are intended to be used forever. What the statute of repose does is prohibit claims for product defects for products that were placed into the stream of commerce several years ago (my state's is a 10 year cut off.) We don't expect that a Model T is as safe as a new Ford. Ford isn't negligent, in my opinion, for not issuing product recalls on Model Ts.
Here, we don't have a lot of information about the product defect, but what it involved was a carburetor float that allowed fuel to infiltrate it, causing it to not float, and thereby restricted fuel flow. I don't know all the specifics, but I don't think that this occured in these floats when they were new. Given the age of this aircraft, you start to run into some of the same considerations as the Model T scenario.
Not true. You suggested that because we are alive, we can't analyze the facts and determine that this is unjust.
Your lack of knowledge of the facts of this case are obvious when you say this. The flight of this aircraft, as documented, is completely inconsistent with the aircraft simply losing power due to this alleged defect. That you don't understand that (either due to you lack of familiarity with the documented actions of the pilot, or you lack of understanding of their significance) is a large part of the vitriol that you have experienced from those arguing against your opinions. There is much more information out there than the fact that the plane hit the ground. By the way, CFIT is by definition inconsistent with a power loss.
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
You took it that way, but that surely wasn't the intent of what I said. Analyze away, that's what I've been doing.
I mentioned its easy to take this personally and victimize ourselves because we perceive this case as a threat, but in doing so we may be ignoring some of the legitimacy of the case.
We could go on and on, but I don't know what the point is anymore. You seem bent on discrediting me, I seem bent on supporting a legal system while being understanding of the demand and wants for tort reform. What is your point? Just to prove this is a wasteful case and it hurts everyone period?
What is the magical tort reform value of a human life? what should we implement to prevent cases from destroying our industry while at the same time preserving product liability? should aviation just be excluded from product liability? is that what you want?
please, I can see you're trying to tear me down every step of the way, give me something to grab onto instead.
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
Last I checked a carb failure could result in loss of power and the age old saying is "pitch for speed, power for altitude" and if you're losing power and losing altitude, well there is a circumstance of cfit. CFIT is rather generic isn't it? I don't know why anyone would need to quantify this.. unless a pilot is dead, every accident would be CFIT if the accident started off the ground..
regardless, you're now assuming full knowledge of the entire case, I won't claim to go that far.
hey, to make you feel better. You win.
No, CFIT is controlled flight into terrain. It is a term of art that excludes a loss of engine power. I didn't make that term up. The scenario you describe would not be CFIT, by definition.
No, I do not. But I did read the information regarding the radar return data, and the ATC transcript. What it describes is a flight entirely inconsistent with your loss of power scenario.
You were asking for some thing to grab on to. Here it is: go read the NTSB reports that provide the undisputed evidence of what occured during the flight and what was said. Let's talk about what is there and whether you still think that it is more than likely, based on that information, that the carburetor caused this accident.
No. Just correct mistatements, and hopefully point out false assumptions.
I do understand your basic point, though-- tort recovery should be permitted to reimburse the family for losses caused by the negligence of the manufacturer. That's not controversial, and I agree. Where we went a little off track was in the anaysis of this specific case.
As I tried to get at before, the evidence that is available in this case is clearly inconsistent with death caused by a product defect. On this issue, others have tried to convince you, but there has been much talking past each other. To the extent you have responded with hypotheticals about how this accident could be consistent with a product defect, I suspect that you are simply trying to prove your first contention-- that a tort recovery should be permitted under the appropriate circumstances. But, to some, the conflation of these two issues may suggest lack of knowledge of the specific facts that are available, or unable to grasp the significance of those facts. I do not say this as an attack. I do not think you are unable to analyze the facts. But I think you might understand more where the others are coming from if you look at the documented facts, and consider whether this result really makes any sense based on what we know about this case. Stated differently, this case isn't a great example to hold up as justification for the need for our tort system. There are way better cases than this one for that purpose.
Last edited:
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,473
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
1. Someone had better set a precedent, and soon, before this self-eating society is totally consumed.
2. There should have been a court case, first, to determine if Lycoming was negligent.
3. The caps would protect society as a whole. We have a schizophenic philosophy of "rights" in both our countries, where the community is supposed to be protected, and the rights of the individual are also supposed to be protected, and in many cases they are mutually impossible to satisfy. We have cases, for example, where penitentiary prisoners get better food and medical care and do less work than the taxpayer on the outside. There's a classic situation where the "rights" of a few violate the rights of all taxpayers to reasonable taxation.
If society as a whole is not protected, every individual soon suffers as the society breaks down. We simply cannot have everything we think we should, Bud.
Dan
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,473
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
You're forgetting something. Life is risky. If you choose to drive to the airport, you're chances of getting killed are about 11 times greater than getting snuffed in an airliner crash. But the unfairness of the whole thing is that the airline will get to pay your estate millions of bucks, but in the case of the car accident it might get a few hundred thousand, if you weren't at fault.
Life is risky. Never forget that. Men love risky pursuits. Never forget that, either. And some men think other folks must be to blame if they get hurt, so we have skiers that go out of bounds and violate, big time, the agreement they signed when they bought the ski ticket. They get lost or injured or freeze to death or killed by an avalanche and it costs a fortune to rescue them or retrieve the remains, and guess what? It's someone else's fault: the operator of the ski resort, who get to fork out much money and see their insurance go way up and so the ticket prices go way up and the rest of us, we who obeyed the rules, get to pay way more. We see this sort of unbelievable stupidity in Canada way too often.
Dan
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,473
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
I am an aircraft mechanic and Commercial pilot and have sat through seminars presented by the guys who do accident investigations. They can tell quite easily what the engine was doing in its last few seconds of flight. There is always plenty of evidence. For example, the propeller gets bent differently if the engine was working hard than if it was idling or dead or at low power. The connecting rods and bearings and pistons and much other stuff show damage from sudden stoppage from cruise RPM. The impact of the airplane causes high-enough deceleration to drive the tachometer and airspeed needles against the faces of the instruments, leaving a small mark to reveal valuable information. Lights that were glowing will have broken or stretched filaments in a way that burned-out or turned-off lights won't.
As far as this "defective" carburetor that everyone knows is a bad design: Sure, the Precision Aeromotive carbs, based on the Marvel Schebler design and made variously by several companies over the decades, have their drawbacks and have had several ADs against them over the years. This is not a perfect world, son, and in aviation the costs of developing newer and better carburetors is prohibitive for two reasons: (1) A new and improved carb is seen by opportunistic lawyers as an admission that the earlier model was defective, and (2), general aviation has gotten a lot smaller over the years partly because opportunistic lawyers have sued the pants off the manufacturers and maintainers and flight schools and everybody else, and the market for new carbs has gotten commensurately smaller as a result. So the R&D costs get spread over fewer carbs, which then cost more. So you are paying about ten times more for your flight lessons than I did in the early '70s, in an age where the real cost, adjusted for inflation, of many other consumer goods and services have declined.
These "defective" carbs seldom totally fail, and if they do it's most often due to bad or nonexistent maintenance or a failure to comply with the ADs. In my experience, the ignition system gives nearly ten times the trouble that the fuel delivery system does.
Dan
Morne
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 699
- Display Name
Display name:
Morne
There you go, intentionally hiding something and being discovered for it! I thereby allege that your deception caused the February 30th crash of Douche Flight 13 from Atlantis to Xanadu. Pay up $26 million, chucklehead.
Your TV watching habits are as relevant to this crash as the carb. Pay up.
You keep saying you respect our legal system. WHY? It is such a thoroughly abused piece of garbage that it'd be a joke if it weren't so tragic. And YES, there are civil courts in other countries that are not as rampant with abuse.
American tort exists to get lawyers paid. Whether you live or die, whether a company stays in business or not, whether anyone collects on their 35-cent class action coupon or not, the LAWYERS GET PAID.
You want to respect that? You go right on ahead. Must be lonely petting sharks...
Dav8or
Final Approach
So you are basically admitting that the Plantiff went gold digging and hit pay dirt, right? The super clever lawyers for the plaintiff found an unrelated defect in the defenses armor and went for the kill. Sound about right? Is this how a CFIT accident turns into carburetor trouble resulting in millions?
Judge- "So, why is Lycoming responsible for this airplane flying into a mountain in the fog?"
Defense- "Ummm... well, There's this known defect with their engine's carburetors that could possibly cause the engine to stop and force the airplane to land on poor terrain. We maintain this is what happened."
Judge- "But the NTSB said..."
Defense- "Oh, no, no, no... you can't use the NTSB and besides they are assisted by Lycoming, so can't be trusted."
Judge- "Do you have any proof to support your theory?"
Defense- "No... but can you prove otherwise? Can it be said that beyond a reasonable doubt that the Lycoming engine didn't quit prior to the crash? Why else would such a competent and caring pilot crash?"
Judge- "Maybe he screwed up?"
Defense- "Seriously, look at the sobbing widow and her children and tell her that her loving and dutiful husband screwed up. Do you really want to add insult to injury? There is no evidence that there was any pilot error from the wreckage. However, we do have a Lycoming engine that doesn't run."
Blah, blah, blah...
Jury- "Give the woman her money, that big ol' company can afford it.
olasek
Pattern Altitude
Frankly I doubt ...
Ok, you need a nanny to spoon feed you ... This is a link to CATO's paper and it has nothing to do with international law..
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2002/10/v25n3-12.pdf
More sources are available when you google .. surprise, surprise.. "FAA cost of human life", again, majority of the sources have nothing to do with international cases.
Last edited:
Ateaist
Pre-takeoff checklist
This is just plain stupid. Not to engage in any debate regarding the merits versus fallacies of our tort system, there is one fact everybody needs to understand: The judge found as a matter of law that Lycoming was negligent, because Lycoming refused to turn over incriminating documents in discovery. The whole case, including the negligence determination, would had gone to the jury had Lycoming complied with the order to produce documents. But Lycoming and its attorneys and insurers presumably determined that the risk of doing that would outweigh the benefit, as the jury then would have had evidence of management's knowledge of a design defect. So knowing that they were toast in any event, Lycoming decided to not comply and leave only the determination of damages to the jury.
A link that includes the court's order for sanctions and finding of liability and causation is here:
http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2...fter-lycoming-refuses-to-turn-over-documents/
I am a novice at aviation and therefore ask questions; I do not pretend or profess to know that of which I'm ignorant. Those who have not studied or practiced law should sometimes consider doing the same.
Last edited:
Warrior
Line Up and Wait
This is just plain stupid. Not to engage in any debate regarding the merits versus fallacies of our tort system, there is one fact everybody needs to understand: The judge found as a matter of law that Lycoming was negligent, because Lycoming refused to turn over incriminating documents in discovery. The whole case, including the negligence determination, would had gone to the jury had Lycoming complied with the order to produce documents. But Lycoming and its attorneys and insurers presumably determined that the risk of doing that would outweigh the benefit, as the jury then would have had evidence of management's knowledge of a design defect. So knowing that they were toast in any event, Lycoming decided to not comply and leave only the determination of damages to the jury.
A link that includes the court's order for sanctions and finding of liability and causation is here:
http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2...fter-lycoming-refuses-to-turn-over-documents/
I am a novice at aviation and therefore ask questions; I do not pretend or profess to know that of which I'm ignorant. Those who have not studied or practiced law should sometimes consider doing the same.
This sort of reminds me of Martha Stewart and Richard Nixon's legal problems. That pair didn't get in trouble because of the crime, they got in trouble because of the lying and covering up.
It certainly pays to consult a capable attorney but when you are facing legal challenges overall it pays to be honest.
Aztec Driver
Line Up and Wait
This is just plain stupid. Not to engage in any debate regarding the merits versus fallacies of our tort system, there is one fact everybody needs to understand: The judge found as a matter of law that Lycoming was negligent, because Lycoming refused to turn over incriminating documents in discovery. The whole case, including the negligence determination, would had gone to the jury had Lycoming complied with the order to produce documents. But Lycoming and its attorneys and insurers presumably determined that the risk of doing that would outweigh the benefit, as the jury then would have had evidence of management's knowledge of a design defect. So knowing that they were toast in any event, Lycoming decided to not comply and leave only the determination of damages to the jury.
A link that includes the court's order for sanctions and finding of liability and causation is here:
http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2...fter-lycoming-refuses-to-turn-over-documents/
I am a novice at aviation and therefore ask questions; I do not pretend or profess to know that of which I'm ignorant. Those who have not studied or practiced law should sometimes consider doing the same.
As one more knowledgeable in the law, I ask this question, mostly because I do not understand the reason for the tort system to be designed the way it is.
Wouldn't the system be better if there had to be a finding of actual fault to determine who pays and who doesn't? Would it not also be better if, when a suit is brought up, whoever the prevailing party is pays the costs associated with the suit?
Warrior
Line Up and Wait
That would be a refreshing change and a great idea!
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
First, Cato isn't a government body, its a think tank. Second, I did Find the info no thanks to you and 3rd, I just haven't bothered replying to you because there is no point, your only assertion is I don't know how to use the internet..
This topic has gone off the rail.. fight amongst yourselves.
Dav8or
Final Approach
Can you blame Lycoming for not wanting participate in a witch hunt against them? Why should they turn over confidential documents about defective carburetor floats (they didn't make) in an accident that is about an airplane flying into a mountain in the fog? Defective carburetor floats indeed. 10,000 hours and 500 hours past TBO on how many rebuilds? I wish everyone with a carbureted engine to have this good fortune. Hell, I had trouble with my fuel injected engine after just 400 hours since rebuild.
If there really was this fatal flaw in their engines, there would be Skyhawks and many other brands dropping from the skies in great numbers, but there isn't. This is a witch hunt and good on Lycoming for not playing that stupid game. Take it to appeals and get a reasonable judge.
Ateaist
Pre-takeoff checklist
In this particular case, there was no way for a jury to determine who was at fault, because one of the parties refused to hand over evidence. As a result, the judge decided that a fair trial on the fault issue could not be had, and made a decision as a matter of law that Lycoming was at fault. This decision is reviewable on appeal, but it will be very difficult for Lycoming to argue that the judge abused his discretion in view of their culpability.
It doesn't make sense for the prevailing party to pay the cost of suit - not only was this party injured by the other party's conduct, but also has to pay the cost of getting redress for that injury? Likewise, to have the losing party pay for the cost of the suit has issues, especially as it would be a deterrent to those less well off to use the court system to seek redress for their grievances. The system is far from perfect, but has evolved to provide a level playing field to the litigants.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I think that assessment is unfair to the horse crap.
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,473
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
Those "defective carburetor floats" were addressed here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...DA28338BF3FCB4C786256A410065BB2D?OpenDocument
If the problem was the float, it was either addressed by this AD and the owner did not comply, or there's an existing defect they haven't told us about. In the latter case, I can't believe that the carb manufacturer or Lycoming would have it in their best interests to hide any such defect. Precision has shown plenty of will in the past to issue ADs on their carbs, and every time they do, or any time any other manufacturer of engine accessories issues an AD, Lycoming reissues it on an SB if there's a chance that any of those affected accessories are on a Lyc engine somewhere. I've seen ADs that might affect a small handful of engines.
Dan
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
It may be horse crap to you, but I fought Bank of America representing myself pro se and I won
, so I got to fling some horse crap at them and the judge, but they bought it I guess.There are lots of ambulance chasers and sharks out there, but no industry is devoid of that. Look at workmans comp, they basically have to hire PI's every time someone makes a claim because fraud is so prevalent. Aviation isn't unique to the pluses and minuses of the legal system, it looks like Lycoming has benefited from suing people as well.. (its how they protect their rights too)
Another obscene award.....
....
Feds Paid Over $10 Million To Settle Lawsuits After Runway Excursion
Six People Were Seriously Injured When Plane Was Blown Off Runway By A Wind Gust
Documents released late last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request indicate that the federal government paid $10.2 million to settle a variety of lawsuits stemming from a runway excursion which occurred in Denver in 2008.
A Boeing 737-500 operating as Continental Flight 1404 was departing from Denver International Airport on December 20, 2008, when it was pushed off the runway by a strong crosswind gust. It went into a ravine and caught fire. There were 110 passengers and crew aboard the aircraft. All survived, but six reportedly suffered critical injuries. Some 38 suffered non-life-threatening injuries in the accident.
The Associated Press reports that there were 60 lawsuits filed against the government in connection with the accident alleging that air traffic control in Denver did not advise the pilot about the gusty winds prior to giving him takeoff clearance. The amount paid to settle those suits was revealed in Justice Department documents provided in response to a FOIA request by the AP.
The NTSB said that the ATC system and inadequate crosswind training in the airline industry were contributory factors in the accident.
....Feds Paid Over $10 Million To Settle Lawsuits After Runway Excursion
Six People Were Seriously Injured When Plane Was Blown Off Runway By A Wind Gust
Documents released late last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request indicate that the federal government paid $10.2 million to settle a variety of lawsuits stemming from a runway excursion which occurred in Denver in 2008.
A Boeing 737-500 operating as Continental Flight 1404 was departing from Denver International Airport on December 20, 2008, when it was pushed off the runway by a strong crosswind gust. It went into a ravine and caught fire. There were 110 passengers and crew aboard the aircraft. All survived, but six reportedly suffered critical injuries. Some 38 suffered non-life-threatening injuries in the accident.
The Associated Press reports that there were 60 lawsuits filed against the government in connection with the accident alleging that air traffic control in Denver did not advise the pilot about the gusty winds prior to giving him takeoff clearance. The amount paid to settle those suits was revealed in Justice Department documents provided in response to a FOIA request by the AP.
The NTSB said that the ATC system and inadequate crosswind training in the airline industry were contributory factors in the accident.
olasek
Pattern Altitude
Never said it was, however the caliber of this organization should speak for itself.
bnt83
Final Approach
"This case, however, was a bit different. It was the judge who ruled that Lycoming was responsible for the crash before the case ever reached the jury. All that was left for the jury to decide was how much to include in its verdict. The judge ruled against Lycoming because it refused to turn over relevant documents in the case. Apparently, the documents were so incriminating that Lycoming felt it was better to suffer a certain jury verdict than to allow the documents to see the light of day."
http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/articles/general-aviation/
http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/articles/general-aviation/
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,473
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
It would seem, then, that Lycoming got what they deserved. But guess who gets to pay for it? We do.
Dan
bnt83
Final Approach
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
I've said it a zillion times, I represented myself pro se and I won my case because I just followed the civil rules of procedure for the court that was handling my case.. Lycoming could have done this, but as we see, they decided to play stupid and they got hung.
Why did all of you guys jump down my throat without having any evidence? Isn't that what is truly wrong here?
Sure, this case will impact the cost of Lycoming engines, but at their own damn fault.
Not mine..
Ateaist
Pre-takeoff checklist
Actually, Lycoming's insurance company does. It's all factored in as a cost of doing business, including compensating for the loss of human life...
Ateaist
Pre-takeoff checklist
Lemme guess................ You are an attorney.
Yup - and I spent ten years of my life representing big corporations like Lycoming.
jhausch
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,410
- Display Name
Display name:
jhausch
Thought this thread deserved resurrection when I saw this article:
How Safe Is Safe Enough?
http://www.designnews.com/author.as...industry_alt,bid_22,aid_262955&dfpLayout=blog
How Safe Is Safe Enough?
http://www.designnews.com/author.as...industry_alt,bid_22,aid_262955&dfpLayout=blog