Ferry flight lawsuit (mods please help with title)

Make the loser's attorney personally responsible for all of the winner's legal expenses. Problem solved.
 
Palmpilot said:
What about the statute of repose that Congress passed, which convinced Cessna to start making small piston airplanes again? Does that fall in the category of tort reform?
Click to expand...

Most states have Statutes of Repose and I wouldn't consider that tort reform. I think repose statutes are similar in nature to statute of limitations for actions which are entirely proper. At a certain point in the future, you shouldn't be able to hold someone liable for defects.
robin ardoin said:
A great start on tort reform, in my opinion, would be to allow the defendant to be compensated for direct and indirect costs incurred when the defendant prevails. I have been the subject of two malpractice suits brought after the patients retained insurance checks and refused to pay their bills. Once collection efforts were instituted the patients filed suit. Both cases persisted for a couple of years and incurred a bit of expense to defend. Both cases were dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs incurred no expenses. In fact, in one case the plaintiff's potential expert, after reviewing the records, sent my attorney a letter saying he would make himself available as a defense expert in my case if desired.
Click to expand...

This is the "American Rule" with respect to attorneys fees. Each side is responsible for their own attorneys fees, with exceptions. Our system regarding lawsuits isn't perfect, but I'll take it over any other legal system in world. The more you try to limit the kind of lawsuits you wish to prevent from ever happening, the more constitutional rights you are infringing upon. It is a delicate balancing of interests.

As a practicing attorney in the tort arena, the number of clients I accept and file lawsuits on behalf of versus the number of clients/lawsuits I turn down is probably on the magnitude of 1 to 25 if not greater.
 
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...

Please spare us. I have been to too many mediations and settlement conferences where mediators and judges strong-arm settlements based not on the facts but because of the cost of defense and risk of a runaway jury. As long as there is insurance to pay, the plaintiff's bar will be there, and the judges are all too happy to perpetuate it.
 
Dana said:
Make the loser's attorney personally responsible for all of the winner's legal expenses. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
If the problem is people being able to file lawsuits at all, or lawyers putting their clients' interests above their own, then yes, that would solve it.
 
Lindberg said:
If the problem is people being able to file lawsuits at all, or lawyers putting their clients' interests above their own, then yes, that would solve it.
Click to expand...
I think that the problem is frivolous legal actions and/or lawsuits that are based on "deep pockets" rather than on any reasonable liability on the part of the defendant.

Here's an example:
www.usatoday.com

$800,000 awarded to family of girl burned by McDonald's chicken nugget, Florida jury rules

A jury in Florida has ruled that McDonald's must pay $800,000 in damages to the family of a girl that who was allegedly burned by chicken nuggets.
www.usatoday.com

Without digging too deeply into the details of the case, I'm going to say that the ONLY reason that the plaintiff in this case got the settlement was because the defendant was seen by the jury as "big money", which gives uneducated jurors a sense that the cost all goes to some nameless faceless amalgamation of "corporations" and "rich people".

Note this post from above to see why I have 100% faith that this is the case:

www.pilotsofamerica.com

Ferry flight lawsuit (mods please help with title)

tldr; ferry flight had poorly installed ferry tanks. Google founder sued. Let the “all lawsuits are the work of the devil” chants begin. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/24/24082072/sergey-brin-google-2023-plane-crash-lawsuit
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com
 
This is one of those "both sides are right" debates.

Lawsuits are a necessary process. I can say from personal experience they are a huge motivator in forcing businesses to take prudent risk reduction measures.

But they are absolutely subject to abuse, especially in circumstances where the potential for a large payout from a wealthy target exists.

Insurance companies play an important part in mitigating abuse and constraining the system. They are usually the big losers in a large award, so they push for settlements and mediations, and are prepared to aggressively defend in court.

Brin almost certainly has a huge personal liability and umbrella policy, so his insurance lawyers will deploy in force and threaten a battle of attrition. The case will go to mediation, where it will probably settle for a few million bucks. All the lawyers will get paid, the grieving widow will get 60%, and Brin's premium will go up.
 
Do you think that's appropriate IF he had nothing to do with it, short of having a 3rd party install the ferry tank and hiring the ferry crew?
If the investigation determines the ferry tank was incorrectly installed, they should go after the installers. If the ferry crew mismanaged the fuel, for whatever reason, it's on them.

I find it unacceptable to go after the owner just because he has money. It's like a car owner being sued by the guy he sold the car to, because the car crashed due to an unknown manufacturing defect.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Do you think that's appropriate IF he had nothing to do with it, short of having a 3rd party install the ferry tank and hiring the ferry crew?
If the investigation determines the ferry tank was incorrectly installed, they should go after the installers. If the ferry crew mismanaged the fuel, for whatever reason, it's on them.

I find it unacceptable to go after the owner just because he has money. It's like a car owner being sued by the guy he sold the car to, because the car crashed due to an unknown manufacturing defect.
Click to expand...
IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.

But here's the catch. Neither side knows what is true until discovery is complete. For all you know, Brin was told the job really needed a special valve, but that valve would take 3 months to ship, and he didn't want to wait to start squiring his guests around Fiji, so he threatened the installer or waved money at them. You're just ASSSUMING Brin is blameless. Right now that is an unknown.

Discovery will uncover all all the relevant evidence. All parties will be deposed, email records will be provided, etc etc. Once that is all done, if the facts support your assumption that Brin was blameless, then the process will likely peter out.

Keep in mind Brin is only going to pay the deductible, unless he committed some really gross act of negligence to void his coverage. The insurance company is on the hook for everything from the deductible up to the limit of coverage. I assume billionaires have astronomical coverage, which means the insurance company is going to fight like hell to keep the settlement close to the deductible.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.
Click to expand...
If he had nothing to do with it, the settlement should be zero.

As for the rest of your post, I think that you may not understand how most large entities operate. They are almost universally self-insured. Thus, the insurance company does not cover the risk, they merely process the claims and provide actuarial input to business decisions.
 
Last edited:
BTW, both sides have a strong incentive to settle. Actual trials are obscenely expensive for both sides, and have uncertain outcomes. If the case against Brin is not strong, the plaintiff's lawyers can squander huge amounts of money and time for no result. It's a high stakes calculation of risk for them.
 
Ed Haywood said:
BTW, both sides have a strong incentive to settle. Actual trials are obscenely expensive for both sides
Click to expand...
And that's where the problem lies. The innocent party should not have to bear the cost of the legal expenses. If you sue and you lose, it's all on you. That wil deter people who sue just because they hope the rich party will settle.

I'm not even sure a jury trial is how these things should be decided. Average Joe (who might think the Earth is flat) might not be able to correctly determine if valve brand A was a better option versus the installed valve brand B. A jury of 12 certified maintenace people, on the other hand...
 
StraightnLevel said:
If he had nothing to do with it, the settlement should be zero.

As for the rest of your post, I think that you may not understand how most large entities operate. They are almost universally self-insured. Thus, the insurance company does not cover the risk, they merely process the claims and provide actuarial input to business decisions.
Click to expand...
I am president of a $50M business. We do business with some of the largest corporations in the world. Let's just say my knowledge of the topic is sufficient for my purposes.

I also have experience making decisions on both sides of the aisle, as both plaintiff and defendant in mediations and lawsuits.

Your statement that the settlement should be zero assumes 100% certainty of the conclusion. But certainty does not exist in the real world. In the real world, the decision will be made by 12 everyday idiots, or maybe by one big idiot in a robe. Neither side can be certain which way that decision might fall at the end of a very long and expensive process. So both sides have a powerful incentive to settle, rather than roll the dice.
 
AV8R_87 said:
I'm not even sure a jury trial is how these things should be decided. Average Joe (who might think the Earth is flat) might not be able to correctly determine if valve brand A was a better option versus the installed valve brand B. A jury of 12 certified maintenace people, on the other hand...
Click to expand...
The attorneys will absolutely make certain that no such "expert" will be seated on a jury.
 
I will admit that I don't have the full list of states that do that for frivolous lawsuits. But it's not all of them, and it depends on a judge (?) throwing out the case.

Looking at some of the cases out there that do go to trial and get settled for six zeros, cases where the engine maker is sued because the VFR-only pilot flew in IMC and smashed into a mountain, it doesn't seem to be working that well, does it? Or the guy sued because the plane he was leasing to a flight school was rented by a suicidal guy who crashed it on purpose, also killing his child in the process.
Seems to me (average Joe when it comes to legal stuff) that there's some room for improvement.
 
AV8R_87 said:
I will admit that I don't have the full list of states that do that for frivolous lawsuits. But it's not all of them, and it depends on a judge (?) throwing out the case.
Click to expand...
Well, since the suit was filed in California, we don't need a full list of states, do we?

California Civil Code 128.5

And if not a judge, who would you propose should have the authority to declare a lawsuit frivolous?
 
Ed Haywood said:
suit was filed in California
Click to expand...
Some of my comments applied to the general state of affairs as well. It would be better if such protections existed in all states.
Ed Haywood said:
And if not a judge, who would you propose should have the authority to declare a lawsuit frivolous?
Click to expand...
The (?) after the judge was there because I didn't know if it was solely a judge decision or if other legal entities were involved.
Based on the cases that still go through, it does look like they could use better judgement.
McD being sued by mom because kid burns their mouth shoving in terrible stuff that came out of 350 degree oil a minute ago? Since when is that anything else than bad parenting?
Not defending McD in general, they're a horrible corporation concocting product (you can't call it food) that is as addictive as possible. But they should be brought to court on valid (and provable) accusations.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The law provides for recovery of legal costs for frivolous lawsuits in most states. So what's your point?
Click to expand...
Not in any practical sense. One must prove that it is frivolous. That has it's own expense and is rarely worth it. What people are suggesting is the "English Rule", you lose, you pay. Very different from what we have now.
 
GaryM said:
If he had nothing to do with it, wouldn’t the only fair settlement be $0?
Click to expand...
Not only should the settlement be $0, he should not have to bear the cost of hiring and paying lawyers to set aside a lawsuit that had no basis in any fact other than that he has "deep pockets".
 
Hang 4 said:
Not in any practical sense. One must prove that it is frivolous. That has it's own expense and is rarely worth it. What people are suggesting is the "English Rule", you lose, you pay. Very different from what we have now.
Click to expand...
Many people suggesting the English rule have never litigated under the English rule. It has its own set of perverse incentives.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
Make the loser's attorney personally responsible for all of the winner's legal expenses. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
I agree that we need laws that require judges to do some gatekeeping in conjunction with requirements to plead some facts that suggests liability might be found against a particular defendant. Combine that with liberal rules allowing adding defendants if the plaintiffs discover facts later that implicates additional parties. The occasional attorney having to pony up for the legal expenses of a party then named in a suit with out a factual basis, would definitely curb the practice of suing them all, and let the jury sort it out.
 
Ed Haywood said:
IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.

But here's the catch. Neither side knows what is true until discovery is complete. For all you know, Brin was told the job really needed a special valve, but that valve would take 3 months to ship, and he didn't want to wait to start squiring his guests around Fiji, so he threatened the installer or waved money at them. You're just ASSSUMING Brin is blameless. Right now that is an unknown.

Discovery will uncover all all the relevant evidence. All parties will be deposed, email records will be provided, etc etc. Once that is all done, if the facts support your assumption that Brin was blameless, then the process will likely peter out.

Keep in mind Brin is only going to pay the deductible, unless he committed some really gross act of negligence to void his coverage. The insurance company is on the hook for everything from the deductible up to the limit of coverage. I assume billionaires have astronomical coverage, which means the insurance company is going to fight like hell to keep the settlement close to the deductible.
Click to expand...
The fact that Brin's liability is unknown should mandate he not be sued until it is known. Under your hypothetical, the plaintiff's will learn of Brin's perfidy upon receipt of the first responses to written discovery requests as other defendants will not want to take the rap for something that Brin did and likely will rat him out at first opportunity. When that happens, plaintiff's amend their complaint to name Brin.
 
Kristin said:
The fact that Brin's liability is unknown should mandate he not be sued until it is known. Under your hypothetical, the plaintiff's will learn of Brin's perfidy upon receipt of the first responses to written discovery requests as other defendants will not want to take the rap for something that Brin did and likely will rat him out at first opportunity. When that happens, plaintiff's amend their complaint to name Brin.
Click to expand...
Sadly it works that way in in Tort 101 but not so much in the real worlds of trial lawyers…in my case an unknown maintenance company, an FBO who happened to be on my home field and never as much touched my Arrow, and Garmin all sued and not a single Garmin product in the aircraft. All had to retain counsel and travel to an out of state court to seek relief.
 
Warlock said:
Sadly it works that way in in Tort 101 but not so much in the real worlds of trial lawyers…in my case an unknown maintenance company, an FBO who happened to be on my home field and never as much touched my Arrow, and Garmin all sued and not a single Garmin product in the aircraft. All had to retain counsel and travel to an out of state court to seek relief.
Click to expand...
I know it doesn't CURRENTLY work that way. I am advocating that one of the kinds of tort reformed needed is to sanction attorneys for naming defendants without a shred of evidence that liability might accrue. Admittedly, the wrongfully named defendant would move/sue for their attorney's fees, but that just involves more attorney's fees to be paid by the wrongfully named defendant. Courts should be required to automatically award costs and fees, payable by the plaintiffs' attorneys, when there is no basis for fraudulently naming a party. Most of these BS suits are pretty obvious, like a suit after an engine failure sues both Bendix and Slick claiming their magneto caused the accident. Both can't reasonably be guilty.
 
Speaking of assessing costs to the losing party, I observed a civil trial in an Arizona court a few years ago. Plaintiff fell and alleged injuries in defendants' home. Insurance offered to settle but was rejected by plaintiff. Jury found for defendants.

Costs incurred by the defense prior to the settlement offer were assessed to the plaintiff. Costs incurred by the defense after the settlement offer were doubly assessed to the plaintiff.
 
AV8R_87 said:
And that's where the problem lies. The innocent party should not have to bear the cost of the legal expenses. If you sue and you lose, it's all on you. That wil deter people who sue just because they hope the rich party will settle.

I'm not even sure a jury trial is how these things should be decided. Average Joe (who might think the Earth is flat) might not be able to correctly determine if valve brand A was a better option versus the installed valve brand B. A jury of 12 certified maintenace people, on the other hand...
Click to expand...
Just think… that flat earth juror gets to vote.
 
Kristin said:
I know it doesn't CURRENTLY work that way. I am advocating that one of the kinds of tort reformed needed is to sanction attorneys for naming defendants without a shred of evidence that liability might accrue. Admittedly, the wrongfully named defendant would move/sue for their attorney's fees, but that just involves more attorney's fees to be paid by the wrongfully named defendant. Courts should be required to automatically award costs and fees, payable by the plaintiffs' attorneys, when there is no basis for fraudulently naming a party. Most of these BS suits are pretty obvious, like a suit after an engine failure sues both Bendix and Slick claiming their magneto caused the accident. Both can't reasonably be guilty.
Click to expand...

This remedy already exists
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Just think… that flat earth juror gets to vote.
Click to expand...
That makes me shudder, but it's a constitutional right (brought to you by Carl's Jr.) and any attempt at tweaking that would go down a very slippery slope, in my opinion. Doesn't take much to go back to three-fifths of a vote.
But juries are supposed to be made of "one's peers". An argument should be made that a jury member with no knowledge on the topic and actions standing trial is not "one's peer".
 
AV8R_87 said:
That makes me shudder, but it's a constitutional right (brought to you by Carl's Jr.) and any attempt at tweaking that would go down a very slippery slope, in my opinion. Doesn't take much to go back to three-fifths of a vote.
But juries are supposed to be made of "one's peers". An argument should be made that a jury member with no knowledge on the topic and actions standing trial is not "one's peer".
Click to expand...
I was making a joke. Not trying to have a conversation.
 
Ed Haywood said:
That is actually a high bar. There is more than a shred of evidence in the Brin suit.
Click to expand...
I was speaking conceptually and mostly responding to cases where a manufacturer is sued, even through none of their product was in the plane. I was not making a specific, legalistic proposal for legislation.

Even given the ambiguity inherent in the word "shred", I don't see where anything available to us shows a shred of evidence against Brin. Some may yet come to light, but that is why plaintiffs can amend complaints.
 
Kristin said:
In theory, but judges need stronger mandates to make it happen.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Do truck drivers endeavor to make less income than possible? What about dentists? Plumbers? Pilots?
 
I thought this was America.
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...
 
StraightnLevel said:
That could depend on whether their position is elected or appointed.
Click to expand...

So which ones are paid for specific outcomes? How do those outcomes fare on appeal?

Is this a commission-based scheme where a decision being overturned on appeal results in the initial payment to the judge being recouped?


So many questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top