Mom Sues Airport After Daughter Killed In Plane Crash

[RJM62]

I find it interesting that at 90% of FBO's you can gain access to an airplane easier than you could gain access to a rental bicycle, moped - or for sure an automobile - at other businesses B)

The FBO / Flight School I presently use requires identification (unless the person at the desk knows and recognizes the renter), checks for and photocopies the solo endorsement if the renter is a student, checks the pilot's log book for check-out and currency if the renter is certificated, keeps the doors on the airplanes locked, and keeps the airplane keys locked in a key locker which is inside another locked metal locker.

The FBO / Flight School I previously used left the keys in the airplanes and the airplanes unlocked.

Go figger.

Rich

 

[tdager]

I find it interesting that at 90% of FBO's you can gain access to an airplane easier than you could gain access to a rental bicycle, moped - or for sure an automobile - at other businesses B)

90% of those other businesses rarely form the type of business/client relationship that occurs at an FBO, especially with student pilots.

Sorry...but that is just a horrible comparison.

 

[BartY]

The English litigation system apparently allows that the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's legal costs if the plaintiff doesn't win.

I like that idea. Lawyer's don't. But I do.

I've spoken to quite a few lawyers that openly support a loser pays system. Its the personal injury crowd that has such fierce opposition to the idea.

 

[stingray]

Oh please! Greedy lawyer my patootie. Why isn't the mother Greedy? No one here has near enough facts to form ANY conclusions. Perhaps it is a BS suit perhaps its not. There is just to much unknown to start calling anyone greedy. Was the guy signed off to Solo? Why was he given the keys when his CFI was not even there? Perhaps he exhibited some warning signs perhaps not. There are to many variables.

As for the father I'm with Kenny he can rot in hell!!

Adam I went through this when my son died. I was shocked at what the lawyer did. He was not in my opinion a greedy lawyer just "Doing his job" as he stated. His job was to get as much money for my daughter in law as he could. He brought anyone and everyone that was even remotely involved to court whether they had any fault or not. His explanation, "Most will just settle to get out of it." I found out from this experience that winning the case is not who is right or wrong or who was at fault, but who gets the most money in the end. The whole thing made me sick.

Dan

 

[gprellwitz]

Adam I went through this when my son died. I was shocked at what the lawyer did. He was not in my opinion a greedy lawyer just "Doing his job" as he stated. His job was to get as much money for my daughter in law as he could. He brought anyone and everyone that was even remotely involved to court whether they had any fault or not. His explanation, "Most will just settle to get out of it." I found out from this experience that winning the case is not who is right or wrong or who was at fault, but who gets the most money in the end. The whole thing made me sick.

Dan

And that system is why everybody is so afraid of being sued. It's not (necessarily) the person they're doing business they're afraid of suing them, but the heirs and their lawyers. The heirs, even if they don't feel that party X has any moral or legal blame, will allow the lawyer, who is, after all, the "expert", go ahead with these shotgun suits just as your DIL's did. And, under the system in place, the lawyer is doing the right thing! It's not about "right" or "morality"; it's about winning the most (money, prestige, power, etc.).

 

[michelle]

That's the problem. Lawyer A, B, C, and D all say, "Sorry, we won't take this case."

There's ALWAYS a Lawyer E.

And what's worse is that Lawyer E will take the case on contingency...meaning that plaintiff attempting to manufacture a settlement does not have to come up with dime one to commence suit.

The answers to all civil matters do not rest within the walls of the Courtroom...sadly, the media has hyped so many frivilous cases that there is an entitlement mentality nowadays that any perceived misconduct must automatically have a monetary award that rights the 'wrong.'

 

[KennyFlys]

And what's worse is that Lawyer E will take the case on contingency...meaning that plaintiff attempting to manufacture a settlement does not have to come up with dime one to commence suit.

The answers to all civil matters do not rest within the walls of the Courtroom...sadly, the media has hyped so many frivilous cases that there is an entitlement mentality nowadays that any perceived misconduct must automatically have a monetary award that rights the 'wrong.'

Hey Michelle,

Welcome to the board!

 

[TMetzinger]

And what's worse is that Lawyer E will take the case on contingency...meaning that plaintiff attempting to manufacture a settlement does not have to come up with dime one to commence suit.

The answers to all civil matters do not rest within the walls of the Courtroom...sadly, the media has hyped so many frivilous cases that there is an entitlement mentality nowadays that any perceived misconduct must automatically have a monetary award that rights the 'wrong.'

Well said, and welcome. Deciding the cause and effect relationship between people who feel that they're entitled to compensation for everything bad that happens, and attorneys who make a living off of that feeling, is a chicken-and-egg problem.