Kobe Bryant dead in helicopter crash

eman1200 said:
another reason why CNN is complete trash (I know u didn't link CNN)…..CNN's headline reads "Text messages before the flight that killed Kobe Bryant appear to show pilot became disoriented in fog". NO, wrong AGAIN, CNN. text msgs showed him DISCUSSING the weather, and that's all they showed. CNN warped that into a blatant lie. muther effers, I hate them. fk. sorry.
Click to expand...
So do I man, so do I. Can’t stand CNN.
 
Bell206 said:
Everything new with latest detailed info. The docket has been open.
Click to expand...
What new information has been discovered? I didn’t see anything more than what we knew 2 weeks after it happened.
 
Ryanb said:
What new information has been discovered?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on how much of the docket you read and what you consider new. Two weeks after the accident most people were wondering what the pilot must have been thinking. Now we have his actual text messages that give an inside view into what he was doing. I'd say that's pretty new and interesting.;)
 
eman1200 said:
another reason why CNN is complete trash (I know u didn't link CNN)…..CNN's headline reads "Text messages before the flight that killed Kobe Bryant appear to show pilot became disoriented in fog". NO, wrong AGAIN, CNN. text msgs showed him DISCUSSING the weather, and that's all they showed. CNN warped that into a blatant lie. muther effers, I hate them. fk. sorry.
Click to expand...
They don't show that, but they do belie any argument that pax pressured the pilot to fly in bad weather.
 
Well, I'm sure glad I didn't link to any articles by CNN! ;)
 
jpskies said:
Who has authority to do that? FBI, or personal lawyer? and why?
Click to expand...
The NTSB IIC has the authority to access, remove, test, etc. any item associated directly or indirectly with their investigation through various rules and regulations. In most cases where there is recoverable memory chips they are usually accessed/removed on site and analyzed before the unit(s) are sent in for the specialized examination. The removal of these memory devices is logged and this record will probably show up in a report or in the docket once the Factual is released. The FBI is usually not involved unless there is a criminal element to the incident/accident or the NTSB requests forensic assistance. FYI: by law, anyone outside the NTSB and FAA is not permitted to be involved in the investigation unless required/invited by the NTSB which usually includes various technical reps but very rarely includes any personal reps and no attorneys.
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
So do I man, so do I. Can’t stand CNN.
Click to expand...

yep. It’s gotten to the point where tabloid headlines at the supermarket checkout like “Pope fathers space alien child” seem less outlandish than the evening news...
 
7ec7927e24cef3b2a5049dfdd572accd.jpg
 
jpskies said:
I wonder why the memory chips in the iPad (NVM) and Samsung Galaxy phone (SD Card) seems all missing described in the NTSB Personal Electronic Devices document. Who has authority to do that? FBI, or personal lawyer? and why?
Click to expand...

only one was described as missing, on most other devices the electronics were broken. I took the missing memory dip to mean the device had broken open and the chip was no longer installed.
 
bflynn said:
only one was described as missing, on most other devices the electronics were broken. I took the missing memory dip to mean the device had broken open and the chip was no longer installed.
Click to expand...
That is "sort of" possible with many devices; mine has x gigs of built-in memory, plus a micro-SD slot, which is empty at the moment. So there should be some on-board memory, even if the NTSB cannot recover it.
 
Last edited:
I read in the news that the pilots lawyers are asking the lawsuit be moved from Los Angles to Orange County. Not sure how moving it to the next county is going help.

But they mention that the pilot's estate is named in the suit.

So here's my question: Let's say the pilot with a wife and two small children had a life insurance policy of a million dollars. Are they in danger of losing that money? And anything else in the estate?
 
donjohnston said:
Are they in danger of losing that money? And anything else in the estate?
Click to expand...
In my limited experiences, it depends on the State laws. Some states protect domiciles and certain incomes (retirement, etc.) from civil awards/settlements. For example, OJ kept his house and NFL/SAG pensions after losing his wrongful death suit because Florida law protects those assets. I don't know what CA laws are on that issue. As to the move to Orange county, it's my understanding that county is the most "conservative" county in the area.
 
donjohnston said:
I read in the news that the pilots lawyers are asking the lawsuit be moved from Los Angles to Orange County. Not sure how moving it to the next county is going help.

But they mention that the pilot's estate is named in the suit.

So here's my question: Let's say the pilot with a wife and two small children had a life insurance policy of a million dollars. Are they in danger of losing that money? And anything else in the estate?
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer, but my question would be "Is life insurance part of the estate?"
 
Palmpilot said:
In the scenario we were discussing, my guess is that the beneficiary would be the widow, not the estate.
Click to expand...
And I am no lawyer, but insurance proceeds should bypass probate and go directly to the beneficiary. Most states protect life insurance proceeds from being gone after. That is the only way my mother in law stayed solvent after her husband passed. Creditors couldn't touch that money.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
And I am no lawyer, but insurance proceeds should bypass probate and go directly to the beneficiary. Most states protect life insurance proceeds from being gone after. That is the only way my mother in law stayed solvent after her husband passed. Creditors couldn't touch that money.
Click to expand...
That would be my guess as well.
 
donjohnston said:
I read in the news that the pilots lawyers are asking the lawsuit be moved from Los Angles to Orange County. Not sure how moving it to the next county is going help.
Click to expand...

The change of forum is being requested on the grounds of bias in the jury pool and forum contacts (all of the victims, except the pilot, were residents of Orange County and the flight departed Orange County). It is extremely rare for a civil, as opposed to criminal, trial to be moved out of a proper forum county (which Los Angeles County is, as the crash happened there and the helicopter company was based there). I find it unlikely they'll be successful.

Anyway, the underlying reason is a belief that the jury pool is more conservative (compared to Downtown L.A., maybe, but not compared to Santa Monica) and the judges are too (not really).

Bell206 said:
In my limited experiences, it depends on the State laws. Some states protect domiciles and certain incomes (retirement, etc.) from civil awards/settlements. For example, OJ kept his house and NFL/SAG pensions after losing his wrongful death suit because Florida law protects those assets. I don't know what CA laws are on that issue. As to the move to Orange county, it's my understanding that county is the most "conservative" county in the area.
Click to expand...

Pensions are generally protected from bankruptcy. Homestead exemptions work differently from state to state, and it was Florida law that allowed him to keep his house there (unlike his Rockingham Estate, which was sold).
 
California is one of the few community property states where shared property such as a commonly owned house can be at risk to pay the deceased’s debts. Miss Bryant may literally bankrupt the pilot’s widow.
 
bflynn said:
[...] Miss Bryant may literally bankrupt the pilot’s widow.
Click to expand...

I doubt Mrs. Bryant needs the maybe few $100k that she could possible squeeze out of the pilot's widow, who is probably just as heartbroken as she is. I hope she'll take the high road and leaves her alone instead of seeking revenge for her husband's death.
 
German guy said:
I doubt Mrs. Bryant needs the maybe few $100k that she could possible squeeze out of the pilot's widow, who is probably just as heartbroken as she is. I hope she'll take the high road and leaves her alone instead of seeking revenge for her husband's death.
Click to expand...

did you read the part about her suing for "lost potential wages"? aint nothing high road about that.....
 
There's nothing high road about ruining a person's life when she wasn't involved except by accident of marriage.

California laws can be complex here. Hopefully there are legal protections in place.
 
eman1200 said:
did you read the part about her suing for "lost potential wages"? aint nothing high road about that.....
Click to expand...

Not when your husband's estate is estimated at ~$600million. To wipe out the pilot's family would be pure vindictiveness. Not high road...
 
eman1200 said:
did you read the part about her suing for "lost potential wages"? aint nothing high road about that.....
Click to expand...

It's easy to include that claim in the complaint, and the estate's attorneys could be subject to liability if they don't. But at the end of the day, they probably are only going after the proceeds of the liability insurance policy. Given that Kobe's estate can easily and legitimately blackboard astronomical earnings figures, it just makes it impossible for the carrier to resist offering its policy limits early in the case in light of the risk of a negligent failure to settle the claim. By making that demand, (which has teeth) it pretty much forces the defense to roll over so that the Plaintiffs can get a quick resolution for policy limits without having to incur the expense and delay of proving up the case as they would need to for trial. Having defended aircraft accident cases with multiple claimants like this one, I suspect the defense is trying to get the matter to a mediation as quickly as possible so that they can offer their limits up and let the various claimants decide amongst themselves how to divide the limited insurance proceeds.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. The helicopter company is claiming that the failure of the controllers to provide flight following is actionable and that they provided inadequate weather information right around the time of a shift change.

It should be possible to retrieve the complaint from the CA superior courts site to see more of their argument.

Given the money involved and the fame of some of the victims, I imagine this case is going to go on for a lot of years.
 
A disagreement between insurance companies.
 
Kobe’s wife will sue the helicopter company, and she will win. They know that. Most likely the combination of their primary and excess coverage is many millions. It will be easy to show Kobe’s lifetime earnings from the point of the crash forward would exceed that number.

His wife will get quite the decision in her favor. The insurance company will pay up to policy limits, then the helicopter company will be on the hook for the remainder. Both the helicopter company insurer and the company themselves will sue everyone possible in an attempt to lessen their individual losses. A lawsuit doesn’t mean they actually think another party is liable, it means they’re looking to scrounge every penny possible, but the operator won’t win this suit, because they don’t have a leg to stand on...
 
Ryanb said:
Kobe’s wife will sue the helicopter company, and she will win. They know that. Most likely the combination of their primary and excess coverage is many millions. It will be easy to show Kobe’s lifetime earnings from the point of the crash forward would exceed that number.

His wife will get quite the decision in her favor. The insurance company will pay up to policy limits, then the helicopter company will be on the hook for the remainder. Both the helicopter company insurer and the company themselves will sue everyone possible in an attempt to lessen their individual losses. A lawsuit doesn’t mean they actually think another party is liable, it means they’re looking to scrounge every penny possible, but the operator won’t win this suit, because they don’t have a leg to stand on...
Click to expand...

"...doesn’t mean they actually think another party is liable..." But they be hoping a Jury will think it, and the man in the long black robe with the big wood hammer won't vacate the judgement. Once again a controllers name gets drug through the mud in an attempt to transfer some money from the Treasury to the victims estate and the pockets of Lawyers.
 
The woman has a net worth of $600M, what is to be gained by wrecking all of the lives of the little people?
 
Bill Jennings said:
The woman has a net worth of $600M, what is to be gained by wrecking all of the lives of the little people?
Click to expand...
‘Money is the root of all evil’ 1 Timothy 6:10

holds true time and time again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top