Yeah, but is it a reckless operation, I do have serious doubts.
Isn't it also true in Diamonds (DA-20/40)?
Agree, if it ever reaches litigation it could be an interesting case.
This is just a wild guess from some internet blogger/poster, hardly a reliable source.
Well, her parents made a statement and said they don't blame the pilot, I think it is an encouraging sign.
:wink2:
Because I have seen it.
It's a bit more complicated than that, and "general prudence" is not the correct legal term, but Henning has the general idea. One thing about those "respected people" (aka "expert witnesses") is that each side will present its own. The plaintiff's will say the defendent's conduct was not up to standards, and the defense's will say it was. Then the twelve schnooks on the jury will decide which side's experts to believe as to what standards should be applied, i.e., what a "reasonable person" would think, and whether or not the defendant exercised the necessary degree of care.
Under some aviation law, she is a passenger until she reaches and enters the terminal, i.e., still subject to passenger limits while walking from the plane to the terminal. Granted, that convention isn't applicable to this case, but it provides an argument. No doubt the attorneys for both sides are digging into the case law for arguably applicable precedents, but I'm not familiar with any. Perhaps Henning as some cases ti cite.
Letting her depart the aircraft. Think "chain of events," or in legal terminology, the "but for" argument, as in "but for the pilot allowing her to depart the aircraft while the engine was still running, she would not have been injured."
I'm not familiar with all the facts of the case. If she really did clear the area and then return, that argument will no doubt be made by the defense -- the outcome would have been no different had the pilot shut down, let her clear the area, and then restarted, killing the "but for" argument I mentioned above. So, if it goes to trial, we'll see what arguments are trotted out and what the jury decides.
The question isn't what rights she has, but rather what obligations the insurer has under the insurance contract. If she is determined to be a passenger, the insurer's obligations are capped even if the jury awards greater damages against the defendant. The difference there is how much the defendant has to come up with above and beyond what the insurer pays. OTOH, if the defendant has no assets to cover any damages beyond the limits of insurance coverage, it's important to the plaintiff to argue that she was not a passenger, so she can collect the full face value from the insurer. Likewise, since the insurer's obligation is far greater if she is not a passenger, it is in their interest to argue she was a passenger.
You are the one confusing the situation, not me. You have to look at it from each party's perspective. Imagine the jury finds damages of $2M. From the plaintiff's perspective, it's a lot better for her to be a non-passenger, since that means she can collect the full policy value from the insurer rather than getting only the seat limit from the insurer and maybe nothing from the defendant himself who has no significant assets to attack to cover the amount of the judgement not covered by the insurer. From the insurer's perspective, it is the difference between being on the hook for $100K versus $1M -- and to the insurer, that's worth fighting about. And from the defendant's perspective, anything which limits the amount paid to what the insurer will pay is good for him. Since the insurer is legally obligated to act in the insured's interest, they'll do what they can in that regard while limiting their own exposure.
Winner, winner -- chicken dinner. If she left the area and then returned, the events become disconnected and allowing her to get out with the engine running is no longer a proximate cause of her injuries. Further, the pilot's agreement to fly her is not something a reasonable person would say was negligent. Remember, there's a 4-part test to determine negligence: