Reno Air Races 2011.... Serious Crash

[Fearless Tower]

I wonder if the seat broke during the turn causing him to pull back on the stick first, breaking the trim tab, and he was unable to get to the controls.

I still cannot figure out why we can't see him in the side pictures. Even if he passed out we would still see him from what I have read. Any thoughts?

Even if the seat did not break, you wouldn't have seen his head - when Bob Hannah had the blackout experience in Voodoo Child, he later said that when he woke up his hands were scraping against the floor rails and his head was in his lap.

 

[Skylane81E]

First good video I've seen at a speed where you could see what was happening, Interesting that he banked left a little more before begining to roll right and pitch up at about the same time.

Don't know what it might mean (if anything) but hey...

 

[bigred177]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...UK4eew?docId=ea7bdbe1657343748fe1ff95cf60cfa9

LAS VEGAS (AP) — The family of a Texas man killed when a racing aircraft crashed into spectators in the National Championship Air Races in Reno filed a $25 million lawsuit Tuesday against the pilot's family, a mechanic on the World War II-era aircraft and the Nevada organization that hosted the event.
The lawsuit filed in Collin County, Texas, is believed to be the first stemming from the Sept. 16 crash of pilot Jimmy Leeward's P-51D Mustang during air races at Reno-Stead Airport. Eleven people died, including Leeward, 74, of Ocala, Fla. At least 74 were hurt.

 

[Jay Honeck]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...UK4eew?docId=ea7bdbe1657343748fe1ff95cf60cfa9

And so it begins. The bloodsuckers will kill this great event.

 

[ScottM]

And so it begins. The bloodsuckers will kill this great event.

Yep. Lawsuits for possible wrongful are a huge waste of the courts time. Not at all like the more serious credit card charges to innkeeper cases that are back logged in the court system.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.051920,-87.974692
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jay Honeck]

Yep. Lawsuits for possible wrongful are a huge waste of the courts time. Not at all like the more serious credit card charges to innkeeper cases that are back logged in the court system.

OMG. Are you actually DEFENDING this legal action?

Not a single member of the general public was injured or killed in that accident.

Not a single person who WAS injured or killed was unaware of the risks of air racing.

Every person at that event waived their right to sue by purchasing a ticket, which states (on the back of every ticket) that they may be injured or killed.

This is a travesty of justice.

BTW: I've never sued anyone in my life. Never have, never will. I resolve disputes personally.

 

[BellyUpFish]

I think from previous posts, ScottM may be of the bloodsucker tribe.

 

[wabower]

I assume that you are aware that case law precedent does not support the "fine print on the back of the ticket" defense.

OMG. Are you actually DEFENDING this legal action?

Not a single member of the general public was injured or killed in that accident.

Not a single person who WAS injured or killed was unaware of the risks of air racing.

Every person at that event waived their right to sue by purchasing a ticket, which states (on the back of every ticket) that they may be injured or killed.

This is a travesty of justice.

BTW: I've never sued anyone in my life. Never have, never will. I resolve disputes personally.

 

[JoeSelch]

OMG. Are you actually DEFENDING this legal action?

Not a single member of the general public was injured or killed in that accident.

Not a single person who WAS injured or killed was unaware of the risks of air racing.

Every person at that event waived their right to sue by purchasing a ticket, which states (on the back of every ticket) that they may be injured or killed.

This is a travesty of justice.

BTW: I've never sued anyone in my life. Never have, never will. I resolve disputes personally.

Oh, brother...

 

[flyingriki]

I assume that you are aware that case law precedent does not support the "fine print on the back of the ticket" defense.

Then why is it there?

 

[flyingriki]

I think from previous posts, ScottM may be of the bloodsucker tribe.

 

[ScottM]

BTW: I've never sued anyone in my life. Never have, never will. I resolve disputes personally.

And by that you of course mean that you would never ever and would resolve personally except in cases where you first knee jerk reaction to request legal advice on who to sue.

So...whom shall we sue?

Hmmm quickly one can forget.

OMG. Are you actually DEFENDING this legal action? .

And BTW I am defending their right to seek litigation, just as I would your right. Let me ask you why I would want to deny them their rights?

 

[wabower]

Because the issuer of the ticket (incorrectly) thought it might be of some value in defending a lawsuit. The courts thought differently.

Then why is it there?

 

[Jay Honeck]

Because the issuer of the ticket (incorrectly) thought it might be of some value in defending a lawsuit. The courts thought differently.

As with so many decisions made by "authorities" in this country, that decision -- if true -- was wrongly made.

I've been to the Reno Air Races. It's stated clearly and concisely on your ticket, and on posted signs, that it is a dangerous environment. The people who attended were there of their own free will, and they were told of the risks.

They have no grounds to sue anyone.

Which, of course, will stop no one. They will find an O.J. jury to back them up, and yet another wonderful thing about living in America will have been snuffed out by litigation.

 

[Jay Honeck]

And by that you of course mean that you would never ever and would resolve personally except in cases where you first knee jerk reaction to request legal advice on who to sue.



Hmmm quickly one can forget.

Could this be failure to recognize a hyphothetical question? Or just refusal?

And BTW I am defending their right to seek litigation, just as I would your right. Let me ask you why I would want to deny them their rights?

Of course you are.

 

[wabower]

Are you thinking this is the first time this has happened? If so, you might want to review some of the prior decisions. I don't know when the first case was decided, but it was well before I was attending law school in 1962.

As with so many decisions made by "authorities" in this country, that decision -- if true -- was wrongly made.

I've been to the Reno Air Races. It's stated clearly and concisely on your ticket, and on posted signs, that it is a dangerous environment. The people who attended were there of their own free will, and they were told of the risks.

They have no grounds to sue anyone.

Which, of course, will stop no one. They will find an O.J. jury to back them up, and yet another wonderful thing about living in America will have been snuffed out by litigation.

 

[ScottM]

Could this be failure to recognize a hyphothetical question? Or just refusal?

Hypothetical. Is that the sound of hypocritical tap shoeing I am hearing?

Let's take a recount.

The thread title that Jay wrote was called

Advice, please -- Whom Shall We Sue?

Then you ask

So...whom shall we sue?

Followed by

Do I drop the issue, and pursue the card-holder in small claims court?

Lastly

Do I go after Expedia in small claims court?....

What would YOU do?

You raise taking them to court an awful lot of times for this to be hypothetical and it certainly is not made clear in subsequent posting. But if you know wish to revise your entire thread to one of nothing more than a big joke and troll on the people of PoA. I say you are more than welcome to stick with that new disclosure.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Are you thinking this is the first time this has happened? If so, you might want to review some of the prior decisions. I don't know when the first case was decided, but it was well before I was attending law school in 1962.

So...your defense is that this stupidity has been allowed to go on for a long time?

That is a sorry state of affairs, I must say.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

As with so many decisions made by "authorities" in this country, that decision -- if true -- was wrongly made.

Do you have any idea of the basis these decisions were made on?

"Fine print" is considered a perjorative, not to mention really shady business practice, for a reason.

How about you look up some of these cases? Would you like some citations? I could even send them directly to you.

But I bet you won't read them.

I've been to the Reno Air Races. It's stated clearly and concisely on your ticket, and on posted signs, that it is a dangerous environment. The people who attended were there of their own free will, and they were told of the risks.

By me making this post and you reading any portion thereof, you agree to conduct business electronically. You agree to give me all of your money, all of your property, and anything of whatsoever kind and wheresoever situate that you may obtain in the future. You further agree to name me the beneficiary/devisee of any will or trust, or other any other estate-related document that allows for, contemplates, or requires the transfer of any property of any kind that you might create in the future, and you will amend any such existing documents to name me as the same. Should you fail to abide by the foregoing sentence, you agree to pay me One Million Dollars, American, in liquidated damages, and further agree to pay any attorney fees, expenses, or costs, reasonable or not, that I may incur in pursuing such liquidated damages. You further agree to convert to [insert religion, of my choice, that you have no interest in here], and will renovate your hotel, which I agree to allow you to keep until such time as it shall pass to me per the foregoing provisions, to an appropriate temple for the free use of the local community and/or any pilgrims such as shall make pilgrimages thereto. As further consideration for your receipt of my thoughts, you agree to waive any and all claims that have arisen in the past, that you may have now, and/or that may arise in the future, against me and anyone else in the entire world.

I presume that you think this is a valid agreement?

They have no grounds to sue anyone.

Is being killed through the act of another not a grounds to sue? If not, I know a couple of defense firms that'll pay you a few million dollars a year!

Which, of course, will stop no one. They will find an O.J. jury to back them up, and yet another wonderful thing about living in America will have been snuffed out by litigation.

Why would you blame a jury for governmental incompetence? I'd think you, of all people, would be cheering for holding the government accountable for what it is supposed to do!

 

[Jay Honeck]

You raise taking them to court an awful lot of times for this to be hypothetical and it certainly is not made clear in subsequent posting. But if you know wish to revise your entire thread to one of nothing more than a big joke and troll on the people of PoA. I say you are more than welcome to stick with that new disclosure.

No, Scott. Apparently it was just on YOU.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Do you have any idea of the basis these decisions were made on?

"Fine print" is considered a perjorative, not to mention really shady business practice, for a reason.

How about you look up some of these cases? Would you like some citations? I could even send them directly to you.

But I bet you won't read them.



By me making this post and you reading any portion thereof, you agree to conduct business electronically. You agree to give me all of your money, all of your property, and anything of whatsoever kind and wheresoever situate that you may obtain in the future. You further agree to name me the beneficiary/devisee of any will or trust, or other any other estate-related document that allows for, contemplates, or requires the transfer of any property of any kind that you might create in the future, and you will amend any such existing documents to name me as the same. Should you fail to abide by the foregoing sentence, you agree to pay me One Million Dollars, American, in liquidated damages, and further agree to pay any attorney fees, expenses, or costs, reasonable or not, that I may incur in pursuing such liquidated damages. You further agree to convert to Islam. As further consideration for your receipt of my thoughts, you agree to waive any and all claims that have arisen in the past, that you may have now, and/or that may arise in the future, against me and anyone else in the entire world.

I presume that you think this is a valid agreement?



Is being killed through the act of another not a grounds to sue? If not, I know a couple of defense firms that'll pay you a few million dollars a year!



Why would you blame a jury for governmental incompetence? I'd think you, of all people, would be cheering for holding the government accountable for what it is supposed to do!

Reading through this tripe just made my throw up in my mouth a little.

I swear, just once, I want to live in a country where normal people have normal conversations and resolve normal disputes without loading bucket after bucket with slop like what you just wrote.

The people who were injured or killed at an air race were there by choice. They knew the risks. In the real world, with real people, they have no reason or grounds to sue the race organizers.

Now, someone like you has managed to find a grieving family member who has fallen for their "get rich quick" scheme. And we all know who will get the richest, don't we?

I simply can't imagine the mental, moral, and ethical gymnastics that you guys must go through every day, trying to justify chasing ambulances for a living.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Reading through this tripe just made my throw up in my mouth a little.

I swear, just once, I want to live in a country where normal people have normal conversations and resolve normal disputes without loading bucket after bucket with slop like what you just wrote.

The people who were injured or killed at an air race were there by choice. They knew the risks. In the real world, with real people, they have no reason or grounds to sue the race organizers.

Now, someone like you has managed to find a grieving family member who has fallen for their "get rich quick" scheme. And we all know who will get the richest, don't we?

I simply can't imagine the mental, moral, and ethical gymnastics that you guys must go through every day, trying to justify chasing ambulances for a living.

So, is it safe to say that you don't think what I wrote requires you to do anything that's in it?

Why do you think something in small print on a ticket would be any more binding?

 

[JesseD]

OMG. Are you actually DEFENDING this legal action?

Not a single member of the general public was injured or killed in that accident.

Not a single person who WAS injured or killed was unaware of the risks of air racing.

Every person at that event waived their right to sue by purchasing a ticket, which states (on the back of every ticket) that they may be injured or killed.

This is a travesty of justice.

BTW: I've never sued anyone in my life. Never have, never will. I resolve disputes personally.

Not too argue too much Jay, and I don't know if you remember me from Airventure this year, but I'm the guy with the f'ed up knee. You will have to sue if you're in my situation. Insurance companies don't give you money to cover bills freely. Nor do they give you money to cover the future replacement parts that will be required (decades early at least) due to their insured party.

I won't even go into pain & suffering (I didn't really get jack and squat for that, but really I was looking at costs for the replacement in ~6 years from today) here.

So I hope you'll never be where I was, but don't rule out suing anyone, ever.

 

[TMetzinger]

Well, the stuff on the ticket and the signs is actually factual, and reasonable, and gives the person the option to leave and back out of the implied contract.

Really, by the "fine print" standard the signs that DOD puts up that say "go past this line and you'll be shot" should be void too, along with every other warning sign on earth.

I think the folks have a right to sue.
I think the air race organizers should move for a summary judgement saying "those people knew they could die by watching race planes go by at 400+ mph, we told them so in many different ways", and the judge should say "yep, you're right, they clearly accepted that risk" and strike down the lawsuit.

 

[woodstock]

I simply can't imagine the mental, moral, and ethical gymnastics that you guys must go through every day, trying to justify chasing ambulances for a living.

The second someone throws out "ambulance chaser" my drama-queen alert goes off.

 

[weilke]

Not too argue too much Jay, and I don't know if you remember me from Airventure this year, but I'm the guy with the f'ed up knee. You will have to sue if you're in my situation. Insurance companies don't give you money to cover bills freely. Nor do they give you money to cover the future replacement parts that will be required (decades early at least) due to their insured party.

You didn't bust your knee by engaging in some particular higher than normal activity that you engaged in after being warned in writing that it is dangerous ?

You go in the ring at a boxing or MMA match, you can't sue the other fighter. No different with attending an airshow.

 

[Jay Honeck]

So, is it safe to say that you don't think what I wrote requires you to do anything that's in it?

Why do you think something in small print on a ticket would be any more binding?

The card you sign when you check into my hotel has several hundred words of rules and regulations. Each rule has been written in blood -- my blood -- as we've been burned by various people and problems over the years.

Example #1: Pets are banned in the hotel without specific consent of management. This allows me to throw people out, without refund, if they try to sneak a St. Bernard into a non-pet-friendly room in the hotel.

Example #2: There is a $200 fine for smoking. I've charged it, and it has stood up, thanks to their signature under that "fine print".

Example #3: Parties are not allowed on-site. If you are loudly disturbing other guests, you will receive one warning, after which you will be evicted without refund. At our hotel in Iowa City (home to 35,000 college kids) this rule was invoked countless times by my night manager.

All of this "fine print" has served us well. If you sign the card without reading the rules, that doesn't mean you are any less bound by them.

WRT the Reno Air Races, when those attendee bought those tickets, and read those posted warnings, they were no less bound by what that "fine print" said, than my hotel guests are tonight.

99 out of 100 people would agree with me. The 100th one is an attorney.

 

[Jay Honeck]

You didn't bust your knee by engaging in some particular higher than normal activity that you engaged in after being warned in writing that it is dangerous ?

You go in the ring at a boxing or MMA match, you can't sue the other fighter. No different with attending an airshow.

......................

 

[Everskyward]

You go in the ring at a boxing or MMA match, you can't sue the other fighter. No different with attending an airshow.

I would say it's very different.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Well, the stuff on the ticket and the signs is actually factual, and reasonable, and gives the person the option to leave and back out of the implied contract.

....

I've bought a whole lot of tickets over the years. Most of them had waivers on them (on the back, that 99% of the public never looks at, in part because the ticket is frequently subsequently surrendered for admittance/use). I found out that the waiver was there after paying for, and receiving, the ticket. I've never seen one that was refundable, although I certainly had the option of not participating in whatever the activity was.

I'm not sure how a contract is formed by disclosing the existence of an agreement after another agreement is already made and paid for.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The card you sign when you check into my hotel has several hundred words of rules and regulations. Each rule has been written in blood -- my blood -- as we've been burned by various people and problems over the years.

Example #1: Pets are banned in the hotel without specific consent of management. This allows me to throw people out, without refund, if they try to sneak a St. Bernard into a non-pet-friendly room in the hotel.

Example #2: There is a $200 fine for smoking. I've charged it, and it has stood up, thanks to their signature under that "fine print".

Example #3: Parties are not allowed on-site. If you are loudly disturbing other guests, you will receive one warning, after which you will be evicted without refund. At our hotel in Iowa City (home to 35,000 college kids) this rule was invoked countless times by my night manager.

All of this "fine print" has served us well. If you sign the card without reading the rules, that doesn't mean you are any less bound by them.

That's fine, it's not fine print, and is a wise business practice. You'd be nuts not to do it (you'd be smart to have these rules accessible when reservations are made, for PR purposes if nothing else). There's a full and fair opportunity to review exactly what is being agreed to. Further, none of those absolves you of your duty to act within the normal standard of care, whatever it may be (i.e., you don't have a license to neglect the smoke detectors).

Not so in the case of something like a ticket waiving duties on the part of someone else.

WRT the Reno Air Races, when those attendee bought those tickets, and read those posted warnings, they were no less bound by what that "fine print" said, than my hotel guests are tonight.

99 out of 100 people would agree with me. The 100th one is an attorney.

That's fine if you think that. I expect you to behave accordingly and honor our contract.

Now, if you want to argue a doctrine called "assumption of risk," then you might be on to something (seriously, give it a good googling). But don't fool yourself about a contract that's disclosed only after you've supposedly entered into it.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I would say it's very different.

Yes, and no.

Obviously in a boxing match the GOAL is to injure and hurt the other guy. It's kind of hard to sue someone for achieving the goal that was stated up front.

In the case of an airshow, obviously it's no one's goal to crash. That's why these things are called "accidents", and that's why the organizers post warnings for the people who pay big money to park their butts next to really fast airplanes.

I've been to this air race. It is dangerous. You would have to be an utter moron to not know that it is a dangerous environment -- even WITHOUT the warnings and waivers.

Example: Mary and I bought pit passes at Reno. You want dangerous? You've got whirling, sharp bladed propellers, highly explosive fuels, and lots of big, heavy equipment -- all of which can kill a human in an heartbeat.

It was thrilling, and I wouldn't trade a minute of my time in the pits for anything. But I was never under any delusions that we were "safe" -- far from it.

And if I had been killed there, I would have come back to haunt anyone in my family who had the gall to sue anyone. I put myself in that position, freely and knowingly.

To see the Reno Air Races killed by litigation would be incredibly sad. I hope they muscle through this.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Now, if you want to argue a doctrine called "assumption of risk," then you might be on to something (seriously, give it a good googling). But don't fool yourself about a contract that's disclosed only after you've supposedly entered into it.

When we attended the races in 2004, the warnings were posted at the ticket booth, as well as on the ticket itself. You have the option of leaving before you buy. The act of buying is acceptance of the waiver.

Or, rather, it is acceptance of personal responsibility everywhere except in the bizarro world of the courtroom, where black can be white, up may be down, and O.J. didn't kill Nicole.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yeah if I recall correctly the print on the ticket is a REMINDER of the contract you entered into knowingly by purchasing the ticket, not a surprise.

But of course it has no effect on third parties (which I think is who is suing in this case, for the damages caused by the loss of their relatives).

 

[Everskyward]

Obviously in a boxing match the GOAL is to injure and hurt the other guy. It's kind of hard to sue someone for achieving the goal that was stated up front.

In the case of an airshow, obviously it's no one's goal to crash. That's why these things are called "accidents", and that's why the organizers post warnings for the people who pay big money to park their butts next to really fast airplanes.

I would say that the air racers themselves would be more analogous to the boxers but they are not trying to crash either. The spectators at an event are part of the general public. Sure they chose to be there but there is an expectation that the organizers have not been negligent. Obviously I can't say one way or the other whether that is true or not, and I don't think that any outcome of the lawsuit is a forgone conclusion.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

When we attended the races in 2004, the warnings were posted at the ticket booth, as well as on the ticket itself. You have the option of leaving before you buy. The act of buying is acceptance of the waiver.

That is assumption of risk. It doesn't make a waiver more or less valid.

I can't help it if you want to complain about the law without knowing the particulars of it.

Assumption of risk is what you want to assert as a defense here. The waiver is bupkis.

Of course, all of this really barking up the wrong tree. If anyone wants to protect air racing, the better course of action would be to ask state legislatures, possibly Congress, to adopt an appropriately-tailored version of Colorado's Ski Safety Act. Summarized, the "SSA" makes very clear what a ski area must do (post appropriate markings, etc.), and if it does these things it has no liability.

Or, rather, it is acceptance of personal responsibility everywhere except in the bizarro world of the courtroom, where black can be white, up may be down, and O.J. didn't kill Nicole.

Again, I'd think that you of all people would be applauding the OJ jury, as it is perhaps the epitomy of The People holding the government's feet to the fire for the mistakes that the government made.

 

[JesseD]

You didn't bust your knee by engaging in some particular higher than normal activity that you engaged in after being warned in writing that it is dangerous ?

You go in the ring at a boxing or MMA match, you can't sue the other fighter. No different with attending an airshow.

I wasn't referring to this incident, merely Jay's assertion he will never sue anyone.

--edit

In my case the offender broke several traffic laws to cause my injury.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Yeah if I recall correctly the print on the ticket is a REMINDER of the contract you entered into knowingly by purchasing the ticket, not a surprise.

How can you validly enter into something if you don't know what is that you're entering into until after you've entered into it. When am I going to have an opportunity to read the back of the ski ticket that I've just paid for?

But of course it has no effect on third parties (which I think is who is suing in this case, for the damages caused by the loss of their relatives).

This is actually where we get into nerdy "law talk." I'll spare you.

 

[JeffDG]

Let's say I go to the Air Races. I assume the risk of attending, and even assume that the waiver on the back of the ticket is worth something. I'm killed at the event.

Now my daughter...she wasn't there, and even if she was, she lacks the legal capcacity to form a contract, being 8. She is deprived of her father. As she's entered into no contract waiving her rights to sue for negligence, why can't she, or her guardian ad lietem on her behalf, pursue a suit? This has nothing to do with my losses, but hers, both damages that she suffers from being deprived of a, allegedly, loving father, and her pain and suffering at having to deal with her father's death.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Let's say I go to the Air Races. I assume the risk of attending, and even assume that the waiver on the back of the ticket is worth something. I'm killed at the event.

Now my daughter...she wasn't there, and even if she was, she lacks the legal capcacity to form a contract, being 8. She is deprived of her father. As she's entered into no contract waiving her rights to sue for negligence, why can't she, or her guardian ad lietem on her behalf, pursue a suit? This has nothing to do with my losses, but hers, both damages that she suffers from being deprived of a, allegedly, loving father, and her pain and suffering at having to deal with her father's death.

There's that nerd-talk we talked about.