Veteran Tales Interview #3

Steve

Steve

En-Route
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
4,178
Location
Tralfamadore
Display Name
Display name:
Fly Right
Last edited:
Steve said:
Anyone who remembers the double Corsair/Bearcat incident at Airventure in 1999 that left Laird Doctor a quadraplegic might be interested in this video.

http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryCaseLawDetail64170/Page1.htm

I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more views.

If you're not familiar with the incident itself here is one view of it

http://youtu.be/oNt3okPWwdY
Click to expand...

I am wading through the brief now, but my first question is, why is the EAA even remotely responsible for this? I bet they were buddies, tight friends even, and now he sues? I am still trying to understand what happened here but I am saddened that everything today seems to come down, ultimately, to money.
 
tdager said:
I am still trying to understand what happened here
Click to expand...
Me too. I don't remember this accident at all so I viewed the video and looked up the NTSB report. What I don't get is that the person who is suing is the one who ran into the other airplanes from behind. It looks like he started his takeoff roll before he was sure the airplanes in front of him had started theirs. :confused:
 
It was briefly touched on in the interview when the accident is discussed. You have to listen carefully to his the comments regarding the litigation involved (and what was not said) and the outcome of that as it affected him personally. I think it is non-trivial that he mentions the term "power of attorney" and his physical and mental state at the time.

I was at Airventure in 1999 and was listening to the Air Boss on a handheld when the incident occurred. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I would not say it didn't contribute to the confusion at the time of the incident.

If you're interested in reading more here is a another website with a copy of one of the legal proceedings

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=2005190186SW3d4_1189.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
It was briefly touched on in the interview when the accident is discussed. You have to listen carefully to his the comments regarding the litigation involved (and what was not said) and the outcome of that as it affected him personally. I think it is non-trivial that he mentions the term "power of attorney" and his physical and mental state at the time.
Click to expand...
I don't see any interview in the links provided.
 
Steve said:
Go to 1:12:42 of the first video (titled "Veteran Tales Interview #3 Laird "Lad" Doctor"). The whole video is an interview.
Click to expand...
I think the problem was that the first link in the first post was not to the video (unless I am blind) but to a court brief. Here is the video which I found using Google-fu.


Steve said:
I think it is non-trivial that he mentions the term "power of attorney" and his physical and mental state at the time.
Click to expand...
So far I have only watched the last part of the video where he talks about the accident and his life now. I found it interesting that he talks quite extensively about his religion and his RC friends helping him through the situation but never mentions his wife, except briefly in relation to the court case.
 
Everskyward said:
I think the problem was that the first link in the first post was not to the video (unless I am blind) but to a court brief. Here is the video which I found using Google-fu.


So far I have only watched the last part of the video where he talks about the accident and his life now. I found it interesting that he talks quite extensively about his religion and his RC friends helping him through the situation but never mentions his wife, except briefly in relation to the court case.
Click to expand...

My bad, fixed.

And I think your comment on what you find interesting is very astute.

It was important to me to hear his side of things, considering all the vilification he's received from the aviation community.
 
Last edited:
I haven't watched his videos, but my understanding is the aircraft down the runway and the up-runway aircraft were all doing run-ups on the runway.

The flight lead of the aircraft further up the runway thought he had a takeoff clearance and started rolling... once he saw them, he tried to hop over the other aircraft but didn't make it.

EAA's liability probably lies in the instructions or lack of them given, if I had to hazard a guess.
 
Thanks for posting this Steve. It's a real wake up call for any of us doing charitable work; especially if we have anything to lose. Could one assume the jury tried to find some award to help with the long term care this fella would need?

I was on the board of a not-for-profit flying club and my attorney's and bankers repeatedly berated me for so doing. Just had to eventually quit.

Terrible tragedy.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Thanks for posting this Steve. It's a real wake up call for any of us doing charitable work; especially if we have anything to lose. Could one assume the jury tried to find some award to help with the long term care this fella would need?

I was on the board of a not-for-profit flying club and my attorney's and bankers repeatedly berated me for so doing. Just had to eventually quit.

Terrible tragedy.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

I think the courts acknowledged the chilling effect an exorbitantly large settlement would have on volunteering. The actual amount of compensation was never made public, but apparently it was much less than many people assume.
 
The percentages of liability in the prior cases and the amount at least one Defendant paid were both in the court's text above, so the other amounts are likely only a little mild algebra away... ;)

But since the entire case is being sent back to trial, it doesn't matter much. Those numbers are officially now open to change, over a decade later...
 
denverpilot said:
The percentages of liability in the prior cases and the amount at least one Defendant paid were both in the court's text above, so the other amounts are likely only a little mild algebra away... ;)

But since the entire case is being sent back to trial, it doesn't matter much. Those numbers are officially now open to change, over a decade later...
Click to expand...
I don't get the idea that there's going to be another trial. I think that after the case was overturned the parties settled for an undisclosed amount. Like Steve, I also got from the interview that the guy himself was not the driving force behind the lawsuit although he only mentions it in passing and doesn't dwell on it.
 
Setting the actual award aside, the legal expenses and time if would take over the years to defend this would be devastating to most folks. It was sad enough when it happened; to spend several years and who knows how much money to defend this would bankrupt most folks. There may be some insurance, but from what I've seen, that can be a bit thin in a case like this.

Best,

Dave
 
The key to the case being reopened seems to be exactly that... one of the lower courts let an insurer off the hook, and there was $1M just waiting there for the sharks... so they keep pushing.

This wouldn't still be in court if there weren't a small pot of gold, backed by even deeper pockets at EAA and the other co-defendents at the end of the legal rainbow and lots and lots of billable hours.
 
denverpilot said:
The key to the case being reopened seems to be exactly that... one of the lower courts let an insurer off the hook, and there was $1M just waiting there for the sharks... so they keep pushing.

This wouldn't still be in court if there weren't a small pot of gold, backed by even deeper pockets at EAA and the other co-defendents at the end of the legal rainbow and lots and lots of billable hours.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's still in the courts. The documents that were posted are over 5 years old.

Laird Doctor and Linda Doctor v. Howard Purdue and Experimental Aircraft Association, Cause No. 1999-52227, in the 113th District Court, Harris County, Texas. Represented Experimental Aircraft Association in case in which plaintiff was rendered quadriplegic as a result of an air show accident and sued the defendants for $50 million dollars. After a favorable jury verdict, plaintiffs appealed and the case was reversed and remanded for new trial. Before the case was retried, settlement was reached. 178 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App. [1st Dist.] 2005).
Click to expand...

http://www.jw.com/practice/matters/31
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top