Judge finds FAA guility of letting famous pilot have VFR Mid-air

[AdamZ]

In many instances, yes. Suppose I'm a plaintiff's lawyer. I know that it will take you $300,000 to defend a case (and that can be cheap, depending on the case) regardless of whether you win or lose, I'll offer to settle with you for $250,000. That way, you save $50,000, and you "buy peace of mind," meaning that you don't have to worry about a massive verdict against you.

So the answer to your question is an emphatic YES.

mmm I agree to an extent. The Hypothetical you have given is in an ideal world so to speak. That is assuming that the carrier or the Defendant if self insured is only interested in a bottom dollar amount. Usually I find they are interested in quite a bit more, ie reputation, precident etc. Also while these cases are expensive to defend the plaintiffs' costs very often eclipse the defendants costs, so it ain't cheap to prosecute these actions. Any attorney who brings a suit such as this with the intention that the defendant will just settle is making a HUGE and expesive mistake.

Ken cited the cub shoulder harness case but there was also a medical device company I think in Gerogia that made the pedical (sp) screw. They were used off label in back surgeries. from what I heard they were a good product but spurred a lot of litigation. The company that made them beleived in them and committed to fight every claim filed and for the most part they prevailed over the plaintiffs

There are a few lessons learned here

1) Never ever believe what you read in the press about a case, any case, civil or criminal. The distortion is amazing. I have had cases in the press and didn't recognize them but for my named being mentioned.

2)The fact in these cases are incredibly complex.

3) Talking about absolution of personal responsibility; we know VFR even on flight following is see and avoid, so Fowler's calling Hocks base did NOT absolve her of see and avoid. and Fowlers clearing Collins to land didn't absolve him of see and avoid, and their reporting their positions where ever they may have actually been didn't absolve Fowler of his responsibility to confirm thier locations and seperate aircraft.

Also FWIW given the loss of life what was paid out was chump change.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

mmm I agree to an extent. The Hypothetical you have given is in an ideal world so to speak. That is assuming that the carrier or the Defendant if self insured is only interested in a bottom dollar amount. Usually I find they are interested in quite a bit more, ie reputation, precident etc. Also while these cases are expensive to defend the plaintiffs' costs very often eclipse the defendants costs, so it ain't cheap to prosecute these actions. Any attorney who brings a suit such as this with the intention that the defendant will just settle is making a HUGE and expesive mistake.

Ken cited the cub shoulder harness case but there was also a medical device company I think in Gerogia that made the pedical (sp) screw. They were used off label in back surgeries. from what I heard they were a good product but spurred a lot of litigation. The company that made them beleived in them and committed to fight every claim filed and for the most part they prevailed over the plaintiffs

There are a few lessons learned here

1) Never ever believe what you read in the press about a case, any case, civil or criminal. The distortion is amazing. I have had cases in the press and didn't recognize them but for my named being mentioned.

2)The fact in these cases are incredibly complex.

3) Talking about absolution of personal responsibility; we know VFR even on flight following is see and avoid, so Fowler's calling Hocks base did NOT absolve her of see and avoid. and Fowlers clearing Collins to land didn't absolve him of see and avoid, and their reporting their positions where ever they may have actually been didn't absolve Fowler of his responsibility to confirm thier locations and seperate aircraft.

Also FWIW given the loss of life what was paid out was chump change.

For sure - I should have made clear I was speaking in hypotheticals.

A lot of time, in litigation, it comes down to raw human emotion - "I don't like that SOB, so let's take this to trial."

And, to your three points, absolutely agreed on all.