Ferry flight lawsuit (mods please help with title)

Palmpilot said:
:confused2: Don't judges make the same money regardless of how they rule?
Click to expand...

Sure they do, but other attorneys can make more depending on how they rule. For instance, need 16 continuances on a criminal case? Don't pay your attorney. The judge will leave the victims and witnesses swinging in the breeze, having to come to court over and over again for no reason before he will make an attorney proceed.
Lindberg said:
Do truck drivers endeavor to make less income than possible? What about dentists? Plumbers? Pilots?
Click to expand...

No, but neither do they don't hold themselves out as something they are not.
 
squincher said:
Sure they do, but other attorneys can make more depending on how they rule. For instance, need 16 continuances on a criminal case? Don't pay your attorney. The judge will leave the victims and witnesses swinging in the breeze, having to come to court over and over again for no reason before he will make an attorney proceed.
Click to expand...
I was just puzzled by the inclusion of judges on the list of people whose work might be affected by financial incentives.
 
squincher said:
Sure they do, but other attorneys can make more depending on how they rule. For instance, need 16 continuances on a criminal case? Don't pay your attorney. The judge will leave the victims and witnesses swinging in the breeze, having to come to court over and over again for no reason before he will make an attorney proceed.
Click to expand...
How does a lawyer not getting paid make him more money? And if the lawyer isn't getting paid, he's typically going to withdraw, not seek a continuance. Certainly not 16 of them.
squincher said:
No, but neither do they don't hold themselves out as something they are not.
Click to expand...
What do lawyers hold themselves out to be?
 
Last edited:
squincher said:
Despite their constant chanting about truth and justice, the top priority of the legal profession is that attorneys make as much money as possible. It doesn't matter if they are trial attorneys, judges, or legislators, the priority remains the same.
Click to expand...
Judges don't get paid based on how they rule. It is, however true, with state and local judges that are elected, a judge might feel somewhat constrained not to **** off too many people This does not apply to federal judges who have a fixed salary and life-time appointment, save for the very few who are impeached by Congress. Most of the aviation litigation ends up in federal court.
 
Lawyer here. Not seeing anything ridiculous about this lawsuit or its theories. The complaint is posted within the article above. Brin wanted this plane to be ferried from California to Fiji. Brin personally owns a Fijian island. Unless someone can explain to me that his corporate entities needed an $8 million plane in Fiji for legitimate business reasons having nothing to do with Brin enjoying life, his personal liability in this transaction seems pretty easy to establish. What’s going to his best argument that this was a corporate transaction carried out in furtherance of corporate purposes?

When you own an airplane, want it ferried across an ocean, and hire people to perform work on it for that purpose, here’s a list of people who are responsible when the pilots end up dead: you and the people who worked on it. If you can prove wholesale pilot error leading to the accident that’s a defense, but there’s no evidence of pilot error here as the accident cause.
 
Lawsuit allegations of what the FAA found during its investigation:

* No Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”) was issued for the ferry fuel system installed on the subject aircraft.

* No FAA Form 337 appears to exist for the auxiliary fuel system installed on the subject aircraft

* No logbook entries were made for the installation of the ferry fuel system used for the fatal flight.

* No Special Airworthiness (Ferry Permit) was requested or approved for the fatal flight.

* Brin's mechanic who installed the ferry system for the May 20, 2023, flight did not follow any written instructions, did not use a checklist, and failed to fill out the required paperwork. The mechanic was later fired.
 
Sudburian said:
When you own an airplane, want it ferried across an ocean, and hire people to perform work on it for that purpose, here’s a list of people who are responsible when the pilots end up dead: you and the people who worked on it. If you can prove wholesale pilot error leading to the accident that’s a defense, but there’s no evidence of pilot error here as the accident cause.
Click to expand...
Help me out here - when did Brin take ownership of this plane?

From what I read, this plane was owned, maintained, and operated by a 3rd party outfit, and not by Google or Brin.

If I request an intinerary from NetJets and NetJets screws up the maintenance on a ferry flight for the jet that they were going to assign to me, does that make me liable? Seriously?
 
Sudburian said:
* Brin's mechanic who installed the ferry system for the May 20, 2023, flight did not follow any written instructions, did not use a checklist, and failed to fill out the required paperwork. The mechanic was later fired.
Click to expand...
At what point did Google or Brin hire this mechanic? Did Brin or Google have any involvement in the selection of the maintenance firm, or the firm's hiring and assignment process? The complaint states that the operating firm that owned the aircraft contracted the maintenance, and nowhere do I see any evidence that Brin or Google had any involvement in this transaction between separate third parties.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Help me out here - when did Brin take ownership of this plane?

From what I read, this plane was owned, maintained, and operated by a 3rd party outfit, and not by Google or Brin.

If I request an intinerary from NetJets and NetJets screws up the maintenance on a ferry flight for the jet that they were going to assign to me, does that make me liable? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Ownership barely even matters. So let me restate it: If you instruct your minions to ferry your five-degrees-of-separation corporate entity owned airplane to Fiji, you’re still on the hook. Corporate shields can be clever attempts to immunize you from being held personally responsible as a general matter, sure, but corporate shields are often pierced. It’s not that hard. If he wanted the plane in Fiji to party—which appears to be the case—he’s screwed. (To the extent that paying 0.0002% of his net worth in a wrongful death judgment is what he considers “screwed”).

p.s. Brin has probably got solid liability insurance anyway. He won’t actually pay a dime personally. Not even lawyer fees.
 
StraightnLevel said:
At what point did Google or Brin hire this mechanic? Did Brin or Google have any involvement in the selection of the maintenance firm, or the firm's hiring and assignment process? The complaint states that the operating firm that owned the aircraft contracted the maintenance, and nowhere do I see any evidence that Brin or Google had any involvement in this transaction between separate third parties.
Click to expand...
Again, it won’t really matter. Everyone involved in the chain of decisions of hiring the mechanic, up and down that chain, will easily be kept on the hook. From the plaintiffs’ perspective, the defendants can all point at each other and fight each other all day long if they want to. That’s not the plaintiffs’ problem and the in-fighting actually benefits plaintiffs in these scenarios.
 
Sudburian said:
Ownership barely even matters. So let me restate it: If you instruct your minions to ferry your five-degrees-of-separation corporate entity owned airplane to Fiji, you’re still on the hook.
Click to expand...
There's a whole lot of supposition going on in this statement, and there needs to be a whole lot evidence that has not been presented for any of it to hold.

If there is an ownership trail between Southern Cross and Brin, why was it not made clear in the complaint?
Sudburian said:
p.s. Brin has probably got solid liability insurance anyway.
Click to expand...
Brin and Google are almost certainly self-insured, just like nearly every mid-cap and larger corp.
 
StraightnLevel said:
There's a whole lot of supposition going on in this statement, and there needs to be a whole lot evidence that has not been presented for any of it to hold.
Click to expand...
Well, call it supposition if you want but it’s the complaint allegations. And the complaint does read as well-prepared and researched. Fact questions will be contested but I’m not seeing indications of bad faith and frivolous lawyer misconduct in it.
StraightnLevel said:
If there is an ownership trail between Southern Cross and Brin, why was it not made clear in the complaint?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn’t have to be in a complaint. And there doesn’t need to be an “ownership trail” anyway, for Brin to be liable.
StraightnLevel said:
Brin and Google are almost certainly self-insured, just like nearly every mid-cap and larger corp.
Click to expand...
Maybe maybe not. Whether Brin personally holds what the rest of us humans would call a liability policy, or he chooses to use a self-insured wealth management entity to write out checks valued at something less than his chosen threshold, I really dont know. But if a case of this nature falls within his S.I.R. amount, he’s deliberately chosen to not give a damn about litigation claims valued at this amount—meaning a couple million bucks per decedent. That’s life as a billionaire.
 
Sudburian said:
Ownership barely even matters. So let me restate it: If you instruct your minions to ferry your five-degrees-of-separation corporate entity owned airplane to Fiji, you’re still on the hook. Corporate shields can be clever attempts to immunize you from being held personally responsible as a general matter, sure, but corporate shields are often pierced. It’s not that hard. If he wanted the plane in Fiji to party—which appears to be the case—he’s screwed. (To the extent that paying 0.0002% of his net worth in a wrongful death judgment is what he considers “screwed”).

p.s. Brin has probably got solid liability insurance anyway. He won’t actually pay a dime personally. Not even lawyer fees.
Click to expand...
From a legal point of view, what would be required to prove that some entity was my minion?

If I arrange for an Uber ride, am I liable for a mechanical issue on the car that was unknown to me? If so, what do I need to do to protect myself from that liability?
 
Last edited:
Sudburian said:
Ownership barely even matters.
Click to expand...
I'm going to ask this again:

If I request an intinerary from NetJets and NetJets screws up the maintenance on a ferry flight for the jet that they were going to assign to me, does that make me liable? Seriously?
 
Palmpilot said:
If I arrange for an Uber ride, am I liable for a mechanical issue on the car that was unknown to me?
Click to expand...
If you had as much money as Musk, the injured party would surely try to get you found liable, but really hoping for some "go away and don't bother me" money.

Putting aside the absurdity of anybody with that much money slumming in an Uber, though.
 
StraightnLevel said:
There's a whole lot of supposition going on in this statement, and there needs to be a whole lot evidence that has not been presented for any of it to hold.
Click to expand...
A complaint is how you start a lawsuit, not the end. It isn't, and doesn't usually contain, evidence. It's a bunch of allegations, some of them made "on information and belief."
 
Dana said:
If you had as much money as Musk, the injured party would surely try to get you found liable, but really hoping for some "go away and don't bother me" money.

Putting aside the absurdity of anybody with that much money slumming in an Uber, though.
Click to expand...
What about an UberJet?

www.flyuberjets.com

UberJets » Live, Fly, Repeat.

Fly UberJets: Book a flight instantly with tap to book, get the best prices in the market on your favorite private jet, become a member today!
www.flyuberjets.com www.flyuberjets.com
 
StraightnLevel said:
I'm going to ask this again:

If I request an intinerary from NetJets and NetJets screws up the maintenance on a ferry flight for the jet that they were going to assign to me, does that make me liable? Seriously?
Click to expand...
If you’re rich enough that anyone should care, yeah, maybe, sure. Billionaires don’t sit around surfing websites for NetJets rides. Most of them force you to sign an NDA just to have a cup of coffee on their patio.
 
Sudburian said:
If you’re rich enough that anyone should care, yeah, maybe, sure. Billionaires don’t sit around surfing websites for NetJets rides. Most of them force you to sign an NDA just to have a cup of coffee on their patio.
Click to expand...
It's a serious question. Someone who can afford to use UberJet, NetJet, XO, or equivalent probably has deeper pockets than the mechanics working on those planes probably, oh, 99.99% of the time. Does that automatically make them a target for the liability lawsuit?
 
StraightnLevel said:
It's a serious question. Someone who can afford to use UberJet, NetJet, XO, or equivalent probably has deeper pockets than the mechanics working on those planes probably, oh, 99.99% of the time. Does that automatically make them a target for the liability lawsuit?
Click to expand...
Why are you throwing the word “automatic” in there? The universe is out of all of our control. If you’re the founder of Google, yes, you might get sued if you ask your buddy to fly your airplane to Fiji and he dies. Or you might not. Generally when you are that closely connected to a fatality, you’re going to get sued unless you are judgment proof (meaning not rich enough to be worth it). Your NetJet analogy doesn’t make a lot of sense and is not what happened here. Brin was partying at his island in Fiji, wanted his plane there, asked his buddy to fly it over, and his buddy was killed. For the average shmoe like you or me—or maybe it’s just me—the only lesson here is to maintain your homeowners liability insurance and buy umbrella coverage too. Talk to an insurance broker regularly. By phone, not by email. And ask lots of questions.

As for your LLC and corporate entities, sometimes those shields work and sometimes they don’t.
 
Sudburian said:
. Generally when you are that closely connected to a fatality, you’re going to get sued unless you are judgment proof (meaning not rich enough to be worth it).
Click to expand...
So, justice as you see it isn't based on actual finding the person guilty of wrong-doing and holding them responsible for their actions, but based rather on finding the person whom you can shake down for the largest sum.

I see.

I struggle mightily with the ethics of this approach.
 
Sudburian said:
Your NetJet analogy doesn’t make a lot of sense and is not what happened here.
Click to expand...
How does it not? How is the operating firm in this case any different from every other private plane leasing firm in operation?
 
I have a vehicle that needs to be moved from the East Coast to the West Coast. That vehicle has always been serviced and inspected by a dealership, and was given a clean bill of health at the last inspection which happened just before the scheduled drive. For reasons, I decide to hire a driver to move the car under its own power. That driver crashes the car and dies in the process.

According to the logic I'm seeing here, me, the owner, despite not being involved in any way in the maintenance, service and inspection of the car, and not being aware of any faults with it, can be sued by the deceased's family because they car's steering failed? And I deserve to be sued, since I'm wealthy enough to afford to hire a driver to move it across the US?

Allow me to disagree with that logic.
Replace car with airplane.
 
StraightnLevel said:
It's a serious question. Someone who can afford to use UberJet, NetJet, XO, or equivalent probably has deeper pockets than the mechanics working on those planes probably, oh, 99.99% of the time. Does that automatically make them a target for the liability lawsuit?
Click to expand...
Serious question: Are you aware of some facts other than those in the Complaint, or are you just assuming that Brin has some sort of magical immunity here? Even corporate forms can be pierced under the correct circumstances.
 
StraightnLevel said:
So, justice as you see it isn't based on actual finding the person guilty of wrong-doing and holding them responsible for their actions, but based rather on finding the person whom you can shake down for the largest sum.

I see.

I struggle mightily with the ethics of this approach.
Click to expand...
That’s a misrepresentation of the law as I’m explaining it to you, but maybe that’s your ethics at work. Generally, the law of all 50 states is that if you hurt someone, you have to pay for it. That’s the basic concept of tort law as your very own state legislature and governor has deemed it. Corporate law can put up barriers to that notion of personal accountability, if you’re rich enough to get the right lawyers and accountants to make it harder. But those barriers are not impenetrable. For some reason you think this billionaire lifestyle, in which you can kill people but don’t need to worry about why, is “injustice,” and that’s totally cool but why don’t you call your legislator about it? The law is the law until the governor signs bills changing it. ‍

I should add that the pilot killed in this incident was a veteran of the United States Air Force and by all accounts a good man and a good pilot.
 
Lindberg said:
Serious question: Are you aware of some facts other than those in the Complaint, or are you just assuming that Brin has some sort of magical immunity here? Even corporate forms can be pierced under the correct circumstances.
Click to expand...
I've read the complaint.

The aircraft was operated by Southern Cross Aviation.
Seafly, LLC is the maintenance firm that serviced the aircraft for a number of years leading up to the incident.
The aircraft was last worked on by James Kitti, a former employee of Seafly, LLC.
Theodore Neale is the Director of Aviation for Seafly, LLC.
Turtle-Pac is the company that manufactured the fuel bladders and electric fuel pumps that were installed on the plane and failed to operate correctly.
Aeroquip (Trinova subsidiary) is the company that manufactured the hoses and fittings used in the installation that failed to operate correctly.
Mr. Kitti installed fuel storage and transfer equipment on the plane without having nor referring to installation instructions fro the manufacturer, Turtle-Pac.
It is not clear why Mr. Kitti did not refer to these instructions for the installation, nor whether Turtle-Pac provided them with the equipment.
Mr. Kitti installed the equipment without filing the required FAA Form 337
Mr. Kitti installed the equipment without making the required entry in the aircraft's logbook.
Southern Cross did not file a flight plan for the ferry trip.

Mr. Kitti is not a named defendant.
Turtle-Pac is not a named defendant.
Aeroquip/Trinova is not a named defendant.

Mr. Brin is a named defendant.
Google is a named defendant.
Mr. Neale is a named defendant.

I think that this just about sums it up. The lawyers here are going after everyone EXCEPT those who might actually bear some responsibility for the incident.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
If this is REALLY the intent, why do the lawyers here go after everyone EXCEPT the manufacturers of the failed fuel system and the mechanic who installed it?
Click to expand...
Lawsuits are expensive. If the mechanic you refer to isn’t a millionaire and doesn’t have liability insurance, why would you sue him?
StraightnLevel said:
I've read the complaint.

The aircraft was operated by Southern Cross Aviation.
Seafly, LLC is the maintenance firm that serviced the aircraft for a number of years leading up to the incident.
The aircraft was last worked on by James Kitti, a former employee of Seafly, LLC.
Theodore Neale is the Director of Aviation for Seafly, LLC.
Turtle-Pac is the company that manufactured the fuel bladders and electric fuel pumps that were installed on the plane and failed to operate correctly.
Aeroquip (Trinova subsidiary) is the company that manufactured the hoses and fittings used in the installation that failed to operate correctly.
Mr. Kitti installed fuel storage and transfer equipment on the plane without having nor referring to installation instructions fro the manufacturer, Turtle-Pac.
It is not clear why Mr. Kitti did not refer to these instructions for the installation, nor whether Turtle-Pac provided them with the equipment.
Mr. Kitti installed the equipment without filing the required FAA Form 337
Mr. Kitti installed the equipment without making the required entry in the aircraft's logbook.
Southern Cross did not file a flight plan for the ferry trip.

Mr. Kitti is not a named defendant.
Turtle-Pac is not a named defendant.
Aeroquip/Trinova is not a named defendant.

Mr. Brin is a named defendant.
Google is a named defendant.
Mr. Neale is a named defendant.

I think that this just about sums it up. The lawyers here are going after everyone EXCEPT those who might actually bear some responsibility for the incident.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of any private settlements reached with these other folks you’ve named? Or are you just assuming they weren’t pursued?
 
Lindberg said:
Maybe they already settled.
Click to expand...
So, if the people who were actually responsible have settled, why continue to go after the rest? What's the real goal here?

It sure looks like pure gold-digging from where I sit.
 
I find this quote
imwithtuxedo said:
The “problem” you identify that a victim of mis-directed legal action being held liable without any actual responsibility for the wrongdoing having to pay would be amazing for trial lawyers such as myself, if it did in fact exist. It doesn’t.
Click to expand...
compared to this quote

Sudburian said:
Generally when you are that closely connected to a fatality, you’re going to get sued unless you are judgment proof (meaning not rich enough to be worth it).
Click to expand...
(both written by Plaintiff's lawyers) hilarious.
 
Sudburian said:
Lawsuits are expensive. If the mechanic you refer to isn’t a millionaire and doesn’t have liability insurance, why would you sue him?
Click to expand...
As I have said on here several times, Plaintiff's lawyers just want the insurance money. No matter how much they grandstand on justice, it's about the money.
 
PPC1052 said:
I find this quote

compared to this quote


(both written by Plaintiff's lawyers) hilarious.
Click to expand...
I’m a defense lawyer. Civil litigation. There’s a lot of ad hominem in this dumb thread and very little discussion or actual curiosity about the law. Thought I’d wade in but ew. Peace out.
 
Last edited:
I must commend Sudburian for standing here and explaining his views against the eventual onslaught of comments that he will get from said views
 
something that some fail to grasp: there can be a difference between what is just (moral, ethical) and what the law says.
 
Bob Noel said:
there can be a difference between what is just (moral, ethical) and what the law says.
Click to expand...

True.

And there can be a difference between what is just (moral, ethical) and what the lawyer says. And I think that's what's bugging some folks on this thread.

First a lawyer says,
Generally, the law of all 50 states is that if you hurt someone, you have to pay for it.​
and then the same lawyer says,
If the mechanic you refer to isn’t a millionaire and doesn’t have liability insurance, why would you sue him?​
despite that mechanic seeming to be the person who most likely hurt someone. That same lawyer also says,
Generally when you are that closely connected to a fatality, you’re going to get sued unless you are judgment proof (meaning not rich enough to be worth it).​

Yet the lawyer doesn't seem to see any incongruity between these various statements. Take them all together and they say, "If you hurt someone you have to pay for it, unless you're not a millionaire, in which case some millionaire who is somehow linked to the situation will have to pay for it."

1709928088882.gif
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Take them altogether and they say, "If you hurt someone you have to pay for it, unless you're not a millionaire, in which case some millionaire who is somehow linked to the situation will have to pay for it."
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top