The pilot is already dead. This lawsuit isn’t going to bring back any of the dead people. We all pay for this in increased insurance rates.
Why the wedding venue? They arranged the charter?
Yes and no. Operators still are lax just as this accident shows and others. But I think what does need to be addressed is excessive tort claims as that is what drives up the cost of things. And the current Chamber of Commerce report predicts that excessive tort cost will add close to $1T by 2030. Having seen the system in action I think a reasonable tort cap will go a long way to see to the needs of the survivors without crippling the rest of society. But that will never happen so long as congress consists of 60+% attorneys by trade.
Appropriate name for a law firm.
This is a truly crazy take. Why on this green earth should the families of the victims sacrifice to protect your insurance rates (if that were even true)? No lawsuit ever brings back dead people. That's not how death or lawsuits work.
The purpose of the tort system is to hold actors accountable for the externalities of their decisions. In the simplest form, to make them accountable for all the costs of the risks they take. There's also a punitive aspect to discourage people from taking risks that society finds unreasonable. If tort damages are limited to the actual harm caused, or worse, capped, you actually encourage risk taking because you shift some (or a lot) of the exposure externally. Economic and game theory tells us this soft in the expected value results in more risky behavior than is called for.
Without seeing the venue contract for the accident event, we don’t know the level of legal exposure for the venue. However the Revere still offers a “helicopter send off” as one of its services associated with weddings. It also prominently features a black Robby in its promotional photos and videos. I suspect that its contract with its selected helicopter operator(s) contains some type of indemnity language but such language may not be ironclad in this type of accident.
The charter company will be responsible for the pilot's negligence, so blaming him will likely not be a winning strategy for them.
I perfectly understand the reasons behind the tort system, but as I stated, I find issue with the excessive amounts being awarded, ie., putting a cap on those awards and the amounts the attorney can claim. So I think the theory is good, in general, its merely how its managed that is the problem.
I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. They are the same law firm that sued the engine manufacturer on behalf of the victims of a skydiving crash outside Kansas City nearly 30 years ago. They once represented me in a case completely unrelated to aviation. But, in looking to refresh my memory on that case, I see they've made quite the industry out of suing on behalf of light aircraft crash victims, to the point that they now call themselves "the nation's leading aviation law firm". They've turned a case or two into a whole specialty.
"Losing party pays" would help, as would including the law firm, if they are in a percentage contingency deal. (Full disclosure: I worked software support for two law firms for a couple of decades; I saw the sausage being made. Not pretty.)
If you think that putting caps on awards is the solution, you either don't understand, or don't agree with, this economic theory of tort law. Perhaps you could argue for capping punitive damages, but caps on economic damages are actually subsidies for risky behavior.
The lawyers who regularly litigate in "loser pays" jurisdictions believe that the American system would alleviate a lot of their problems.
I'd eliminate punitive damages unless there was a matching criminal conviction, and actually cap economic damages, because any number is just a guess anyway.
Of course. They want more money, and no risk.
You can't prosecute dead people, but you can sue their estate.
Again, key word excessive. And while that economic theory is good on paper, in practice it simply shifts that "risky behavior" to a select group of people at a cost to everyone. Regardless, nobody is stating people shouldn't get reasonable damages and same with the attorneys getting reasonable fees. But when the fox guards the hen house, anything reasonable tends to go out the window.
Conversely, excessive awards for BS claims end up being a tax on everyone. Look to class actions where the "harmed consumer" gets a $1 gift certificate and the attorneys litigating on behalf of the class get 30% of the award. That can me 10s or 100s of millions. The "harm" in many of these cases is both weak and unnoticed by the harmed party.
Meaning most of what people know about that case probably isn't so, and it's actually a great example of a company externalizing the risks of a known risky but profitable behavior, getting called on it, and changing that behavior.
This is where training and mgt support come in. The pilots should absolutely know their employer's and the FAA's rules and know that their owners/managers DEMAND the pilots follow those rules or they will be immediately fired. There is no "just this one time" or "this is a good friend/big client" exemption.
No. Hot coffee is hot. You shouldn't get sued for selling hot coffee. Maybe you get sued because the top wasn't attached properly or the cup was overfilled and the unsuspecting buyer got scalded, but the coffee thing comes up because everyone knows it was ridiculous.
Mcds was keeping the coffee almost 40 degrees hotter than typical home brewed or what competitors used. They knew it was hot enough for 3rd degree burns and had almost 700 prior reports. The lady suffered 3rd degree burns over 15 percent of her body requiring 8 days in the hospital and multiple skin grafts. She originally sued just to cover medical expenses but they declined.
My wild guess:
