The cost of an error

A widow with a net worth in the hundreds of millions of $ is suing the estate of a helicopter pilot...for hundreds of millions of $.

Am I the only one that thinks the whole thing is a circus? Blood from a stone comes to mind.
The whole friggin' world has gone completely insane.
 
SToL said:
but money!

Just like tennis shoes and Tv's somehow makes up for the murder of George Floyd, suing for money makes up for the death of your loved one.
Click to expand...

The widow of the helicopter pilot must be wondering what she is about to be dragged through.
Maybe his family should find someone to sue. :rolleyes:
Unbelievable...
 
Only the lawyers get rich, you can always find a lawyer to sue. Doesn’t make sense.
 
I've asked before - where would the money come from?

The company that was flying is already shut down. They own(ed?) 10 or so aircraft valued around 10 million dollars - 9 remaining helicopters and a fixed wing. They will have some insurance, but nowhere near this much.

So where does anyone think the money will come from?
 
This is likely only to make a point. In most states you can't take someones primary residence and you can't touch their retirement unless it is excessive. Guessing a helicopter pilot isn't a multimillionaire. They will likely get whatever the insurance limit was. Hopefully the pilots wife wont get dragged through all this. That is one of my big fears. I screw up and my poor wife pays the price.
 
While I absolutely understand the need to hold those responsible for the terrible and untimely death of innocent family members to account, the exercise is pointless in my view. She'll spend over a million dollars funding the lawsuit, the jury will rule in her favor, and then...nothing else will happen. While not an exact parallel to the Bryant situation, I have an example to share of how litigation has played a large part in the decline of personal aviation in the US.

Many years ago, the father of one of my closest friends crashed a large pressurized twin on a sunny morning. It killed him, his wife, and four of her friends. He wasn't current for carrying passengers, and had very little recent time or recurrent training in a fairly demanding airplane.

When an improperly secured nose baggage door opened on takeoff, he initiated a downwind turn to return to the airport. The airplane crashed while making the turn to base.

He had neglected to raise the flaps and gear. One throttle was found closed, while the other engine's propeller had been feathered. I'll leave you to judge on the contribution of the pilot's actions to the cause of the crash.

His family sued Cessna. I read the trial transcript. Among other allegations of contributory negligence, the plaintiffs contended a faulty vernatherm caused one of the engines to operate at reduced power, which resulted in the pilot concluding the engine had failed and led to his incorrect manipulation of the controls. The jury ruled in their favor, and the judge awarded several million dollars to the plaintiffs.

I absolutely understand that the pain and suffering caused by the crash motivated the family to look for blame. Because the victims were the mothers of my closest friends, the aftermath was the most horrible experience of my entire life. It still affects my approach to flying and my decision making processes over three decades later.

But I knew the primary surviving family members' level of education and knowledge of aircraft systems. Without a doubt they evaluated the NTSB's conclusions, and came to the realization the cause of the crash had nothing to do with the engine's oiling system. They also knew that awards of significant monetary compensation would ameliorate the cost of legal fees and damage awards the estate would suffer from the multiple lawsuits pursued by the families of the deceased.

This scenario has been repeated over and over again in lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers. It was the primary cause of the decline of GA production from around 18,000 aircraft in 1978 to less than 1,000 in 1994, and Cessna's decision to suspend production of small GA aircraft for years.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
She'll spend over a million dollars funding the lawsuit,
Click to expand...
FWIW: very doubtful she'll spend any money especially with Robb & Robb heading up her legal team. In my limited experience, since her posse already has several different suits filed, look for more defendants to be named once the factual/docket is released. But also keep in mind of the other filings by the surviving members of the other pax plus the filing against the sheriff deputies. Definitely a quagmire of interests. Will be interesting to see if any of the other pax file against the Bryant estate as well.
 
Rein Hart said:
Accurate thread title.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's just what I see it as. This is gonna be costly not only for those involved but there will be recommendations and repercussions and changes to the way things are done. I get the point that she is entitled to compensation but I also believe that there was no intent to be negligent by the pilot. I don't believe that this was the first time that he, they, or other operators had been in & out of this type of scenario. There really isn't a reason to destroy all people involved with monstrous lawsuits and endless court battles.

This made me recall a suit a few years ago where Van's aircraft was sued because the builder made an error that was clearly his and in no way associated with Van's Aircraft or the supplier of the incorrectly installed part: https://www.kitplanes.com/vans-aircraft-sued-for-35-million-over-rv-10-crash/
 
Daleandee said:
. . . but I also believe that there was no intent to be negligent by the pilot. . .
Click to expand...

Just as a point of order, negligence specifically doesn't involve intent. When there's extreme indifference or reckless disregard, it's gross negligence; that's the difference. Decent summary here.
 
Lindberg said:
It seems she sued those actually responsible, so what's the gripe?
Click to expand...

Not really a gripe except
1) she doesn't need the money.
2) there is nowhere near this much money to give her.
3) she is contributing to screwing this up more for you and me.

Those actually responsible begin and end with the dead pilot. The corporation is gone except as a shell holding funds. You can't hold corporate officers personally responsible for the errors of their employees.

I suppose they could go after the helicopter manufacturer, but from everything I've read, the helicopter performed perfectly, including the point the pilot flew it into the ground.
 
bflynn said:
Not really a gripe except
1) she doesn't need the money.
Click to expand...
I don't know what this means.
2) there is nowhere near this much money to give her.
Click to expand...
No one knows that. Figuring it out is one of the purposes of a lawsuit.
3) she is contributing to screwing this up more for you and me.
Click to expand...
How so? The accident happened. It's already in the actuarial data. The liability exists. The insurance companies knew on the day it happened that they'd be paying out up to policy limits. If anyone's contributing to anything, it was the pilot who killed everyone.

Those actually responsible begin and end with the dead pilot. The corporation is gone except as a shell holding funds. You can't hold corporate officers personally responsible for the errors of their employees.
Click to expand...
This was a commercial operation. No one on board had a contract with the pilot, they contracted with the commercial operator. That operator had a duty to exercise care and is responsible for its employee's actions. Whether there's a basis for going after the owners or officers personally isn't something that we can possibly know without much more information--discovery of this information is another purpose of filing a lawsuit.
 
Kobe's estate was worth 600 million. She doesn't need more money. She might want more, but I'm pretty sure she can live comfortably on that.

There isn't 100 million in money out there. The sources of money are the corporation and its insurance. They probably had more than a few debts, including loans on the aircraft. It's entirely possible the aircraft have been repossessed by the banks for nonpayment of loans and the corporation doesn't have enough to even pay lawyers to defend this. So yes, search out how much they have and then realize that they probably are already bankrupt and have no employees. You're most likely dealing with unpaid officers of the corporation who are there just because they can't quit.

Yes, the corporation is the core and bears the responsibility of their employee's error. I'm sorry, I thought that was so obvious that it didn't need to be said. My mistake.
 
Last edited:
Also of note is that one of the other purposes of such a lawsuit is to make sure the business that did this is not around to do it to someone else, and if one can pierce the corporate veil and go after the officers, to make sure they don't do it again either. Additionally, those people being put out of business might cause others in similar situations to think a bit more carefully about their practices.
 
So what is the bulletproof solution here that may have protected the pilots estate? I noticed that while I was growing up my dad put everything, and I mean everything, in the name of an estate (that shares the name of my living mother). He has nothing to his name and I’m assuming has been dumping his salary into said estate for the last 40+ years. I’m curious if that type of situation may provide protection.
 
YooperMooney said:
So what is the bulletproof solution here that may have protected the pilots estate?
Click to expand...
Nothing. Some states do protect certain personal assets from civil proceedings like their house, retirement, etc. However, simply including individual's estate is more an SOP than anything else from what I understand and I'm sure her legal team will leave no stone unturned. Unfortunately, it has been said that in the world of tort, "duty of care" knows no bounds.
 
mcmanigle said:
Just as a point of order, negligence specifically doesn't involve intent. When there's extreme indifference or reckless disregard, it's gross negligence; that's the difference. Decent summary here.
Click to expand...

Point taken ... thanks for the clarification.
 
Bell206 said:
Nothing. Some states do protect certain personal assets from civil proceedings like their house, retirement, etc. However, simply including individual's estate is more an SOP than anything else from what I understand and I'm sure her legal team will leave no stone unturned. Unfortunately, it has been said that in the world of tort, "duty of care" knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

There is virtually no risk to the pilot’s wife. Even if a judgement was rendered against her husband she wouldn’t be liable and if they tried to collect from his estate it would likely be insolvent. Naming the pilot only means that they can pursue that pilots individual liability policy - if any.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A non-flying close friend is going through this right now.
Her Husband, two of his employees, and the employee of another company died in a Chartered TBM last summer. Only one survived, the non-employee, with very bad injuries. The lawsuits are flying. The company had good insurance for just such a case, but everyone is suing everyone.

She was devastated by the crash, and more so about being sued by the families of what she thought were life-long friends.

long sordid story, never should have left the ground. 134 1/2 operation, plane owned by another company and leased part time, etc, etc. Overweight, out of balance, landing in zero conditions, etc. A real clusterfrack that the pilot clearly knew should never have left the ground that day, unless they left someone behind. Pilot also had certificate issues of his own. The Bad decisions and the cascade for this one is a mile long.

it is going to take years to sort out all of the liability. It is tough to talk to her, knowing what I do, and not saying anything. It will all come out in the trials.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
A widow with a net worth in the hundreds of millions of $ is suing the estate of a helicopter pilot...for hundreds of millions of $.

Am I the only one that thinks the whole thing is a circus? Blood from a stone comes to mind.
The whole friggin' world has gone completely insane.
Click to expand...

That’s because you don’t know how these suits are settled. The pilot’s estate will probably pay nothing.
 
I don't believe it's about the money. If you just lost a beloved spouse and child in an aircraft accident that was clearly avoidable (from what we know) you would feel the need to strike out at all parties involved, perhaps with the intention of preventing another tragedy similar to this one. You can't just walk away and say, "Oh well, let's just get on with life..." There was gross negligence that needs to be addressed and nobody disagrees on that. The suit will go after the big money and including the pilot's widow is just a normal step in the process. The fact she may not have considerable assets matters little. Also, the fact that Kobe's widow has $600 million and is filing suit should not be a consideration as she did suffer loss and has every right to seek damages.
 
GRG55 said:
A widow with a net worth in the hundreds of millions of $ is suing the estate of a helicopter pilot...for hundreds of millions of $.

Am I the only one that thinks the whole thing is a circus? Blood from a stone comes to mind.
The whole friggin' world has gone completely insane.
Click to expand...

It's all about insurance. Whatever insurance he has, the operator has...that's what she's after.
 
bflynn said:
I've asked before - where would the money come from?

The company that was flying is already shut down. They own(ed?) 10 or so aircraft valued around 10 million dollars - 9 remaining helicopters and a fixed wing. They will have some insurance, but nowhere near this much.

So where does anyone think the money will come from?
Click to expand...

Insurance. And re-insurance. And if the charter company has not complied with "corporate formalities," the assets of its sister and parent companies. None of it will add up to what the loss of Bryant is worth, but that's where they're seeking the money.
 
GRG55 said:
Blood from a stone comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I've used the term, "you can't get blood from a turnip" before and was reminded that while that may be true you can sure rip the hide off of it. You are correct ... the world is insane.
 
bflynn said:
I've asked before - where would the money come from?

The company that was flying is already shut down. They own(ed?) 10 or so aircraft valued around 10 million dollars - 9 remaining helicopters and a fixed wing. They will have some insurance, but nowhere near this much.

So where does anyone think the money will come from?
Click to expand...
I think that's to be determined. We can all assume there isn't any to be had, but I don't think we actually know that.
bflynn said:
Those actually responsible begin and end with the dead pilot. The corporation is gone except as a shell holding funds. You can't hold corporate officers personally responsible for the errors of their employees.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not. If (for example, I know nothing about this case) there were gross negligence on the part of the corporate officers - again, for example, if they knew there were a problem with the aircraft or the pilot and allowed the flight to take place anyway - then I think there could be some liability there.
bflynn said:
I suppose they could go after the helicopter manufacturer, but from everything I've read, the helicopter performed perfectly, including the point the pilot flew it into the ground.
Click to expand...

bflynn said:
Kobe's estate was worth 600 million. She doesn't need more money. She might want more, but I'm pretty sure she can live comfortably on that.

There isn't 100 million in money out there. The sources of money are the corporation and its insurance. They probably had more than a few debts, including loans on the aircraft. It's entirely possible the aircraft have been repossessed by the banks for nonpayment of loans and the corporation doesn't have enough to even pay lawyers to defend this. So yes, search out how much they have and then realize that they probably are already bankrupt and have no employees. You're most likely dealing with unpaid officers of the corporation who are there just because they can't quit.

Yes, the corporation is the core and bears the responsibility of their employee's error. I'm sorry, I thought that was so obvious that it didn't need to be said. My mistake.
Click to expand...
Again, we don't know for certain, and I think the general idea is "sue everyone within a ten mile radius and let the jury sort it out". Maybe there's nothing left to cover a large judgment. Maybe there is.

My late father worked for a large semi-trailer manufacturer. Pretty much any time a crash occurred that involved one of their trailers, they got sued. EVERYONE gets sued. Dad did a lot of accident investigations, reconstructions, and expert witness testimony for his company and others. The way he explained it (as did our own attorney on another occasion), if the plaintiff sued (for example) just the driver who was at fault, the driver or his estate would simply blame the trucking company, who would then blame the manufacturer, etc. So you sue everyone.

Rein Hart said:
Lots of negative comments towards Bryant’s wife on this thread. The helicopter was full of adults and children not related to Bryant and their families are suing as well.
Click to expand...
This should come as no surprise to anyone.
 
The wife isn't being sued because she is a bystander. Her husband's estate is being sued. I don't know the rules of separating common marital assets from an estate in California, but it seems pretty backwards to punish a widow.
 
Any chance the grieving families just signed a contract to a lawyer group giving them all legal control to do whatever they want so the grieving families has no idea what is going on.??
 
gkainz said:
Exactly the question the pilot's wife probably asked when informed she was being sued ... for millions.
Click to expand...

That wasn’t the question.

Do you really believe the passengers are responsible for forcing the PIC to operate in an illegal and unsafe manner?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top