Cory Lidle lawsuit settled for $2 mm

[SCCutler]

The problem with "loser pays" in this country is that everyone is guaranteed the right to judicial access. Loser pays presents a variety of issues in that regard, and for a few reasons I'm too lazy to discuss right now will likely never become law absent an amendment to the First Amendment depriving you of your right to petition for redress.

With that in mind, a more practical solution in my opinion is to require complaints - the documents initiating a lawsuit - to contain actual evidence. As in, if you don't have actual evidence supporting your claim, you don't get to file it.

Under the system as it exists now, you file your claim and then develop, through a potentially lengthy and always expensive process, the evidence to support it. Of course, there's no burden on defendants to disclose any potentially damaging evidence before a suit is filed, meaning that you often don't have a choice but to file suit. Meaning that a part of this system would impose an absolute obligation upon any potential defendants to disclose any relevant evidence upon receipt of some kind of notice from the potential plaintiff.

That would prevent a whole lot of cases from ever even reaching a court. They'd either be settled before filing, or never filed for lack of any evidence.

In Texas, some types of suits (med mal and claims against architects/engineers) require a Certificate of Merit, prepared by a competent and licensed practitioner of the profession about which complaint is being made, accompany the Plaintiff's Original Petition (Complaint). There may be other types as well.

It creates an interesting tension, because a professional who whores-out Certificates without appropriate inquiry and basis could be liable to the professional licensing authority for their profession, could lose their license to practice!

I can speak principally about the architect / engineer one, as I encounter that in my practice frequently. A suit filed without a required Certificate of Merit can be dismissed, with prejudice, by the Court!

 

[Gary F]

It creates an interesting tension, because a professional who whores-out Certificates without appropriate inquiry and basis could be liable to the professional licensing authority for their profession, could lose their license to practice!

Unfortunately it does not really work that way. False testimony by expert witnesses is a major problem.

What, if any, punitive action can be taken against an expert witness whose testimony has been found to be false? As has been discussed, the thought of penalizing an expert witness for providing false testimony in a legal proceeding is generally viewed by the courts as abhorrent. Courts have consistently held that expert witnesses should be immune to judicially administered penalties, repeatedly ruling that if experts are subjected to such action, qualified physicians and other scientists will refuse to participate and assist in the administration of justice. The disinclination of the courts to discipline experts indulging in false testimony does not extend to state medical licensing boards and professional medical societies, however.

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons suspended one of it's members for false testimony but:

Membership in the Association is not a precondition to the practice of neurosurgery.... [The expert] continues to practice neurosurgery notwithstanding his suspension and subsequent voluntary resignation from the Association.... Indeed, despite the suspension, he continues to testify extensively as an expert witness in medical malpractice cases http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/180/6/1515

The truth is that the legal profession profits extensively from lawsuits and will not allow them to be limited in spite of the adverse impact on justice and the economy.

 

[JeffDG]

The problem with "loser pays" in this country is that everyone is guaranteed the right to judicial access. Loser pays presents a variety of issues in that regard, and for a few reasons I'm too lazy to discuss right now will likely never become law absent an amendment to the First Amendment depriving you of your right to petition for redress.

Due respect, but access to the justice system is not a unique attribute of the US of A. Many countries combine such access with loser-pays, including a few states here (including as of last week, Texas):

By a unanimous vote, the Texas Senate has just given final approval to a once-controversial “loser pays” bill designed to make it easier to get meritless lawsuits tossed out of court.

IMHO, it is wholly inappropriate that defendants have to shoulder the costs of lawsuits in situations where they have not done anything wrong.

 

[Gary F]

Due respect, but access to the justice system is not a unique attribute of the US of A. Many countries combine such access with loser-pays, including a few states here (including as of last week, Texas):

Expect legal challenges by the trial lawyers with the outcome to be determined by their friends who wear black robes.

IMHO, it is wholly inappropriate that defendants have to shoulder the costs of lawsuits in situations where they have not done anything wrong.

Common sense to everybody except the lawyers. It is interesting that many legal firms require clients to agree to have disputes with them to be settled by arbitration while they are fighting it's use everywhere else.

 

[Anthony]

See my post immediately above. Require fact-based pleading rather than notice-based pleading.

The latter basically being, "let me drag you into court based upon allegations I make," whereas the former is basically "let me drag you into court based upon facts I have."

David. I like that A LOT. Thanks.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Due respect, but access to the justice system is not a unique attribute of the US of A. Many countries combine such access with loser-pays, including a few states here (including as of last week, Texas):


IMHO, it is wholly inappropriate that defendants have to shoulder the costs of lawsuits in situations where they have not done anything wrong.

Pretty much every state already has that rule, though - basically saying that frivolous/groundless/vexatious lawsuits mean attorney fees are awarded to the other side. They're really limited, though, and frankly are a major PITA for both the courts and the prevailing party.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

In Texas, some types of suits (med mal and claims against architects/engineers) require a Certificate of Merit, prepared by a competent and licensed practitioner of the profession about which complaint is being made, accompany the Plaintiff's Original Petition (Complaint). There may be other types as well.

It creates an interesting tension, because a professional who whores-out Certificates without appropriate inquiry and basis could be liable to the professional licensing authority for their profession, could lose their license to practice!

I can speak principally about the architect / engineer one, as I encounter that in my practice frequently. A suit filed without a required Certificate of Merit can be dismissed, with prejudice, by the Court!

We've got a very similar system here. And, in my experience, it works fairly well - I have yet to a see anything that I'd call frivolous when a CM, or whatever it is we call it here, is required.

 

[Gary F]

See my post immediately above. Require fact-based pleading rather than notice-based pleading.

The latter basically being, "let me drag you into court based upon allegations I make," whereas the former is basically "let me drag you into court based upon facts I have."

Would this have prevented either of the two recent lawsuits against Cirrus?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I might buy that if an average person files a lawsuit and pays out of pocket but when a law firm gets involved on a contingency basis the rules should be different. A judge could waive the requirement to post a pre-trial bond for those who could not otherwise afford to file suit just as they decide who can have a public defender.

I am not convinced that this would be all that helpful but it seems reasonable.

If you dig through some of my older posts, you'll probably see me mentioning the bond idea, too. I'm not opposed to the idea, but you still run into problems with it, too.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Would this have prevented either of the two recent lawsuits against Cirrus?

It's hard to say. From the judge's pre-trial rulings, it looks as if the plaintiffs had actual evidence that supported their contention of mechanical failure. When you've got actual evidence, there's not much you can do except let it go to a jury.

Unfortunately, I don't know what the evidence was, so I can't offer any insight into whether it was "junk science" or not.

 

[Henning]

The problem with "loser pays" in this country is that everyone is guaranteed the right to judicial access. Loser pays presents a variety of issues in that regard, and for a few reasons I'm too lazy to discuss right now will likely never become law absent an amendment to the First Amendment depriving you of your right to petition for redress.

With that in mind, a more practical solution in my opinion is to require complaints - the documents initiating a lawsuit - to contain actual evidence. As in, if you don't have actual evidence supporting your claim, you don't get to file it.

South Florida Federal Court has been "loser pays" on admiralty cases for a long time. If I arrest someones boat for non payment of a bill, they pay my costs as well. BTDT.

Filing with evidence sounds good but would have a couple of issues.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

South Florida Federal Court has been "loser pays" on admiralty cases for a long time. If I arrest someones boat for non payment of a bill, they pay my costs as well. BTDT.

Filing with evidence sounds good but would have a couple of issues.

Well, there are and always have been certain types of cases that are "loser pays." For instance, most collection cases are - if you don't pay a bill, your contract probably says you owe the balance plus any collection expenses. Some other cases are as well, but it's often set up so that the plaintiff can recover his fees if he wins, but the defendant can't recover his fees if the plaintiff loses.

I can't speak to admiralty law, though. That involves boats and stuff.

 

[Gary F]

It's hard to say. From the judge's pre-trial rulings, it looks as if the plaintiffs had actual evidence that supported their contention of mechanical failure. When you've got actual evidence, there's not much you can do except let it go to a jury.

Unfortunately, I don't know what the evidence was, so I can't offer any insight into whether it was "junk science" or not.

What about the case where the plaintiff alleged inadequate training?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

What about the case where the plaintiff alleged inadequate training?

I'm not familiar with the details of that case, but here's my take on the general subject.

Let's say I manufacture medical equipment. Let's say that in order to persuade you to purchase my medical equipment for use in your practice, I agree to teach you how to use it. Let's say that it is clear and indisputable that I teach you incorrectly, and someone dies on your operating table as a result (or, maybe the equipment electrocutes you because I told you it was perfectly fine to cross the streams or something).

Who's liable? You, or me?

I'd say that, depending on the specific facts of the situation, a teacher *might* be liable. As a teacher, I shouldn't be able to teach you incorrectly, have you rely on that teaching to the detriment of yourself or someone else, and then be able to say, "well it wasn't me that killed you, get outta my face."

 

[Gary F]

I'm not familiar with the details of that case, but here's my take on the general subject.

Let's say I manufacture medical equipment. Let's say that in order to persuade you to purchase my medical equipment for use in your practice, I agree to teach you how to use it. Let's say that it is clear and indisputable that I teach you incorrectly, and someone dies on your operating table as a result (or, maybe the equipment electrocutes you because I told you it was perfectly fine to cross the streams or something).

Who's liable? You, or me?

I'd say that, depending on the specific facts of the situation, a teacher *might* be liable. As a teacher, I shouldn't be able to teach you incorrectly, have you rely on that teaching to the detriment of yourself or someone else, and then be able to say, "well it wasn't me that killed you, get outta my face."

I see what you mean but we are talking about an airplane and there is nothing exceptionally unique to the Cirrus, at least when it comes to exercising judgment about flying into bad weather.

I think we should be eligible to sit for the California bar exam if we read enough of your posts, very enlightening. Thanks.

 

[weilke]

Who's liable? You, or me?

I'd say that, depending on the specific facts of the situation, a teacher *might* be liable. As a teacher, I shouldn't be able to teach you incorrectly, have you rely on that teaching to the detriment of yourself or someone else, and then be able to say, "well it wasn't me that killed you, get outta my face."

You can be held liable for teaching the wrong thing.

As it stands right now in Minnesota, you can't be held responsible for:
- omitting something in your teaching (VFR into IMC in the case at hand)
- a student who doesn't get it (and departs at night with a 1500ft ceiling).

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I see what you mean but we are talking about an airplane and there is nothing exceptionally unique to the Cirrus, at least when it comes to exercising judgment about flying into bad weather.

Like I said, I just don't know the specifics of that Cirrus case. I was just thinking that, in theory, an instructor shouldn't always be excluded from liability. I can pretty easily imagine a situation where you look at a teacher - medicine, engineering, law, flying, whatever - and say, "dude, WTF were you teaching that for?"

As far as "negligent teaching" versus "flying into bad weather" being the dispute in the case. Hmmm. Sounds like a pretty crappy case to me. Unless the negligent teaching involved "yeah, fly right into that thunrderstorm, just make sure your passenger is holding your beer so you can use both hands."

The thing is that, if the plaintiff has evidence to support negligent teaching as causing the accident, a judge cannot rule on the credibility or weight of it. Before a trial, the question for a judge is, paraphrased, "does the evidence presented by the plaintiff, if a jury opts to believe it, allow for a finding of liability?" And, if the answer is yes, the question of liability is left to the jury (or a judge, in a bench trial).

There has been a trend recently in appellate law allowing trial judges to find evidence "incredible as a matter of law." Meaning that a judge can look at a party's evidence, and if it's such BS that nobody could believe it, it can be disregarded. I fully support that concept, but it's unfortunately still developing at the moment - meaning that it's still unclear exactly what the standards are. But I have hope.

I think we should be eligible to sit for the California bar exam if we read enough of your posts, very enlightening. Thanks.

Ha, be careful. California is a strange and wondrous place, particularly with its law, or so I'm told - I've never even been there!

 

[Gary F]

Ha, be careful. California is a strange and wondrous place, particularly with its law, or so I'm told - I've never even been there!

Yea but it allows for non-traditional (online) law schools and as far as I'm concerned you provide a better education than most. How much are you going to charge for my correspondence degree diploma?


Online law schools provide a viable alternative for someone who can't take the time out of his or her workday to earn a traditional law degree. A correspondence law degree can prepare someone to sit for the California state bar exam and practice as an attorney. In time, you can then waive into other states and gain admissions to their state bar associations. California is the only state that allows students to sit for the bar with an online law degree; currently, other states do not recognize online law schools.

Read more: Non-Traditional Law Schools
​

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Yea but it allows for non-traditional (online) law schools and as far as I'm concerned you provide a better education than most. How much are you going to charge for my correspondence degree diploma?


Online law schools provide a viable alternative for someone who can't take the time out of his or her workday to earn a traditional law degree. A correspondence law degree can prepare someone to sit for the California state bar exam and practice as an attorney. In time, you can then waive into other states and gain admissions to their state bar associations. California is the only state that allows students to sit for the bar with an online law degree; currently, other states do not recognize online law schools.

Read more: Non-Traditional Law Schools ​

No kidding. I didn't know that.

What I do know is that law school isn't really necessary to being a lawyer (although lawyers, for whatever reason, put a lot of stock in where you went to law school). Back in the old days, when law was every bit as complex as it is now if not more so, there weren't law schools. You "read" law, and then sat for the bar.

You can do the same thing now, if you're willing to put the time into learning the stuff.

Anway, that's just the beginnings of a rant on the legal education system.

And, I charge what it's worth. Nothing.

 

[Gary F]

No kidding. I didn't know that.

What I do know is that law school isn't really necessary to being a lawyer (although lawyers, for whatever reason, put a lot of stock in where you went to law school). Back in the old days, when law was every bit as complex as it is now if not more so, there weren't law schools. You "read" law, and then sat for the bar.

You can do the same thing now, if you're willing to put the time into learning the stuff.

Anway, that's just the beginnings of a rant on the legal education system.

And, I charge what it's worth. Nothing.

I think you screwed up by teaching us about instructor liability and trial law. How deep are your pockets? I wonder if I would have a cause of action if I flunk the bar exam after attending your free online law school.

 

[JeffDG]

No kidding. I didn't know that.

What I do know is that law school isn't really necessary to being a lawyer (although lawyers, for whatever reason, put a lot of stock in where you went to law school). Back in the old days, when law was every bit as complex as it is now if not more so, there weren't law schools. You "read" law, and then sat for the bar.

You can do the same thing now, if you're willing to put the time into learning the stuff.

Anway, that's just the beginnings of a rant on the legal education system.

And, I charge what it's worth. Nothing.

I believe that "reading law" is still an option in some states, Virginia for instance.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0603/p13s01-lecs.html

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I think you screwed up by teaching us about instructor liability and trial law. How deep are your pockets? I wonder if I would have a cause of action if I flunk the bar exam after attending your free online law school.

My pockets will be pretty shallow until I win the lottery. Which'll happen any day now. [fingers crossed]

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I believe that "reading law" is still an option in some states, Virginia for instance.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0603/p13s01-lecs.html

Virginia's one, and I think Wisconsin might be another. There aren't many, though.

 

[Gary F]

Virginia's one, and I think Wisconsin might be another. There aren't many, though.

Is the bar exam multiple choice? I bet JeffDG could pass it now, it might take me a while to prepare.

 

[JeffDG]

Virginia's one, and I think Wisconsin might be another. There aren't many, though.

From the story:

Only seven states - Vermont, New York, Washington, Virginia, California, Maine, and Wyoming - offer law office study as a road to the bar exam. States offering this path seldom have more than 50 students pursuing it at any given time. Correspondence study or learning law on-line have attracted more than 1,000 participants at a time, but only California, New Mexico, and Washington, DC, will administer the bar exam to someone with this training.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Is the bar exam multiple choice? I bet JeffDG could pass it now, it might take me a while to prepare.

It ultimately depends on where you are, but pretty much everywhere it is a two-part exam. One is multiple choice, and the other is essays. There is also usually an independent test for ethics stuff (conflicts of interest, etc.).

I took it in two states (Md. and Colo.). People make far too much out of the supposed stress involved. Probably due to lawyers' tendency to exaggerate their own importance.

 

[denverpilot]

Why does it not surprise me that two places that certainly don't need any more lawyers (California and Washington, D.C.) allow correspondence courses?

New Mexico maybe I "get it"... but the other two?! Really.

 

[woodstock]

Good luck getting hired in either place with just a correspondence course education.

 

[Gary F]

Good luck getting hired in either place with just a correspondence course education.

I just want to be able to send nasty threatening letters on lawyer letterhead to anybody who p**es me off.

 

[EdFred]

I just want to be able to send nasty threatening letters on lawyer letterhead to anybody who p**es me off.

Heck you can do that w/o a license.

 

[Bob Bement]

Let me see now, I need to tell my wife who to sue in case I run into the top of Profile Mountain, on my way to Big Creek landing Strip. The state of Idaho for the high mountains. Cessna for building an airplane that is flying to low. Garmin for the lack of correct Terrain features. The company that makes the altimeter. There must be some others I can't think of now. Give me a break I hate law suites.

 

[olasek]

The losing side obviously appealed the jury verdict.

Here is what I just found although I am not sure about the exact date when it was posted (how fresh it is) but I think it is important for the completeness of the story (assuming that's the final end):

New York Federal District Judge Barbara S. Jones denied a request for a new wrongful death product liability trial in the case of the fatal plane crash involving Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle, 34, and his instructor co-pilot, Tyler Stanger. The judge's rationale for denying the new trial was that the court had not prevented the introduction of relevant evidence in the prior trial concerning potential plane defects. The trial resulted in a defense jury verdict, siding with Cirrus Design Corporation, the plane manufacturer. The jury held the Cirrus SR-20 plane model was not to blame for the accident, in which the two men crashed into a Manhattan residential high-rise on Oct. 11, 2006.

 

[olasek]

I think it is important to close (maybe?) this case with this decision that came just days ago ...

Dec 29, 2012

The Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's jury finding in favor of Cirrus Design Corporation in a case stemming from an accident that fatally injured New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and flight instructor Tyler Stanger in 2006. The two were aboard a Cirrus SR20 that Lidle had recently purchased. The airplane impacted an apartment building in New York City while attempting a turn over New York’s East River.
According to court documents, the plaintiffs ... the families of Lidle and Stanger, did not prove that the lower court should have allowed evidence from an accident involving a similar aircraft in March of that year. The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the circumstances of the accidents were not sufficiently similar.
The Aviation Law Monitor reports that the families also said that the trial judge was in error for excluding an AD published in 2008 mandating adjustments to the rudder-aileron interconnect on all Cirrus aircraft. But the appeals court ruled that the trial judge had acted properly. If the 2008 AD had been allowed as evidence, it would have opened the door for Cirrus to enter a 2007 service bulletin into evidence that was included as a reference in the AD, which is prohibited by law. The trial judge had said that allowing such evidence might "discourage manufacturers from issuing service bulletins as part of voluntary compliance procedures."
The appeals court ruling is expected to be the final word in this case.

 

[olasek]

The widows of New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor have been ordered to pay Cirrus Design more than $80,000 in court costs related to their unsuccessful lawsuit against the company. (FlyingMag quote).

 

[weilke]

The widows of New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor have been ordered to pay Cirrus Design more than $80,000 in court costs related to their unsuccessful lawsuit against the company. (FlyingMag quote).

Good.

Now we need to find a way to cut the lawyers who take those frivolous cases in on the cost recovery.

 

[olasek]

I wonder how this $80,000 verdict came about.
I was aware that the British legal system often requires the losing side to pay the costs, never heard of this in this country.
Also somehow I suspect this $80,000 is not the full cost incurred by Cirrus but I could be wrong.

EDIT: yes, these are only the so called "court costs".
NY Post writes this: It’s unclear if Cirrus will also seek to recoup its huge legal fees for successfully battling the women’s product-liability claims.

 

[bbchien]

In Memoriam to Tyler Stenger CFI, whose ill considered planning and actions resulted in the loss of two lives, and the permanent loss of access to ALL aviators, of the East River Corridor. RIP. We remember.

 

[douglas393]

I wonder how this $80,000 verdict came about.
I was aware that the British legal system often requires the losing side to pay the costs, never heard of this in this country.
Also somehow I suspect this $80,000 is not the full cost incurred by Cirrus but I could be wrong.

EDIT: yes, these are only the so called "court costs".
NY Post writes this: It’s unclear if Cirrus will also seek to recoup its huge legal fees for successfully battling the women’s product-liability claims.

Hope they do, and hope they go after the widows lawyers.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I wonder how this $80,000 verdict came about.
I was aware that the British legal system often requires the losing side to pay the costs, never heard of this in this country.
Also somehow I suspect this $80,000 is not the full cost incurred by Cirrus but I could be wrong.

EDIT: yes, these are only the so called "court costs".
NY Post writes this: It’s unclear if Cirrus will also seek to recoup its huge legal fees for successfully battling the women’s product-liability claims.

Alaska also has a partial loser pays system but IIRC only if insured.

 

[PPC1052]

I wonder how this $80,000 verdict came about.
I was aware that the British legal system often requires the losing side to pay the costs, never heard of this in this country.
Also somehow I suspect this $80,000 is not the full cost incurred by Cirrus but I could be wrong.

EDIT: yes, these are only the so called "court costs".
NY Post writes this: It’s unclear if Cirrus will also seek to recoup its huge legal fees for successfully battling the women’s product-liability claims.

In federal district court, the court will award "costs" to the winner. "Costs" include copies for exhibits, witness fees, and necessary depositions, and a few other miscelaneous items. It does not include attorneys fees. $80,000 would be no where close to the attorneys fees in a case like that. I had one involving a helicopter crash where our bill of costs was over $100,000, and that was just for all of the deposition transcripts. Unusual to be that high, but not unheard of in a large complex case.