Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Hengelo, Jun 15, 2022.
Was flown hard, did wild maneuvers, subjected to lots of G force, and looks just fine, happy pilot.
Pilot messed up, ruined the lives of masses, hard to ignore the tragedy.
Which pilot did the worst job of aviating?
The Pitt pilot?
The American airlines pilot?
You just love your irrelevant arguments.
How's about 49 U.S. Code 46316, 47306, or 49 U.S. Code 46505 ?
In fact, I don't actually know if any of these would actually apply, but there's a good article about criminal liability in aviation here:
Why not answer the question?
I know 4 lawyers, and a retired judge.
So I sent the 5 of them a text message, asking a question.
If 2 airline pilots, flying identical planes, depart from the same airport, and are heading to the same destination. One pilot does an aileron roll along the way, but nobody is hurt or dies, and he ends up in court on a reckless endangerment charge.
The other pilot doesn't do an aileron roll, but crashes the plane and there are injuries and deaths.
This pilot also ends up in court on reckless endangerment charges.
Which pilot do you think is more likely to be found guilty?
All 5 replied the pilot who crashed.
Because you prefer not to.
Not a lawyer but, addressing the bold as a prospective juror, I would interpret that as harm must actually be caused, whether intentional or not. If it was worded as "the accused need not cause resulting harm" I say that takes on a whole different meaning and that harm doesn't actually need to happen for it to be reckless endangerment.
Just speaking English, which I realize isn’t how the law works, there doesn’t have to be an injury for there to be endangerment.
True. Many are missing the point that injury can be emotional distress, mental anguish, and a host of other things.
True enough, but then the charge laid wouldn't be reckless endangerment.
That is what I have been trying to get across to people.
You may be able to charge the pilot with something.
But the charge has to match the crime.
A reckless endangerment charge would fail in a court of law, and that pilot would be found not guilty.
Does that I can sue @(pick a poa'er) for dissing me here?
You can try...
Hmm. How about a Class Action Suit. Who we gonna get. Who here is the meanest meanie?
I would like to try suing myself.
Making people laugh is good, and I bet that judge would be laughing pretty hard.
I've done a lot of aileron rolls, I mean a lot.
So many I've lost count.
So maybe charge myself with reckless endangerment.
And I could also try a charge of extreme emotional happiness, because they make me smile.
There was a case where somebody did have to do that because their homeowners insurance wouldn't cover something so they had to sue themselves in order to get the homeowners insurance to cover.
I love reading up on legal cases, so will try to find that one to read, it should be interesting .
I always told myself that if times get really tough, and I cannot afford to pay my bills, I am going to drive with a McDonald's coffee, and spill it on myself
I doubt you would if you truly knew the results and circumstances of that particular case.
The case of Robert Maxwell is actually interesting, I was just reading it.
But for a laugh google inmate who sued himself. That was a good try, but like many cases, it failed.
People who want to sue others, need to remember to sue for something relevant, and not overreach. If someone actually did something to you, if you want any chance of winning at all, don't exaggerate the charges, if anything file for less than you might actually win, to increase your chances of winning.
She was awarded almost 3 million dollars in the beginning, but it was later reduced to about a half million dollars. That was 30 years ago when a half million bought more.
She shouldn't have squeezed the paper cup between her legs to try and remove the lid. But I wasn't on the jury, and she won her case. Some frivolous lawsuits get through, but many more don't.
As I stated... if you truly knew the facts of the case... which you obviously do not. Far from frivolous but that is what Mickey D's wanted you to think given their PR campaign. And as a FYI they only reduced the compensatory damages but kept the punitive award intact.
And if you were on the jury, you would have voted for her too.
You need the meanest meanie with money!!
Someone who flies a Mooney then, since they are saving a fortune per mile on gas, they must all be rich
The meanest meanie with mucho Mooney money? We need a poll ...
Eman should be on the list for sure. Unless his clap cream keeps him broke.
I am aware of the facts of the case and I would not have voted for her. Coffee served hot is not defective and a consumer’s inability to operate a coffee cup is not the restaurant’s fault.
the jury was punishing McDonalds for more than the spilled coffee.
BTW, Tex Johnson got fired for his stunt with the 707.
Actually, he remained employed by the company for another 13 years.
Interesting. So you fully expect that when you purchase a hot beverage and accidently spill it in your lap you will recieve full thickness 3rd degree burns and have portions of your anatomy fused togather in the process? Never heard anyone else agree to that. You a sadist by chance? I'm not a fan of plaintiff attorneys but this is one they got right.
Well since you know the facts... you know that is exactly correct and was explained as well with the punitive award. No mystery. Perhaps in your own words explain why you think McD was "punished."
Yes, if I am dumb enough to burn myself with a hot beverage, it is my fault.
I ate a pizza two weeks ago and I still have burn spots in my mouth because I got impatient and tried to eat it when the cheese was still molten. Should I have sued the pizza place for giving me hot pizza?
Ha. Only you would equate pizza mouth with a 3rd degree burn. But I guarantee you had zero expectation that you could get a 3rd degree burn when you bit into that slice either.
But what if that "hot" pizza burned a hole into your sinus cavity and fused your tongue to the roof of your mouth? Then what?
This McDonald's hot coffee thing has always bugged me. Where's the line then? A reasonable individual is going to expect coffee to be near boiling hot. From the case the water was 180-190 degrees, well below boiling point. Let's say that they served it to her at 150? She no longer gets the award? Who decides on the 150? Just because other restaurants served lower quality coffee McDonald's is now responsible for someone else's carelessness?
Optimum water temperature for coffee brewing is around 195 to 196. That's how you extract the best flavor from the grounds. McDonalds has always prided themselves on surprisingly good coffee. The case shows that there really isn't any "reasonable" nature to our legal system, it's lawyers playing word salad and either the more crafty logician or whomever can play to the jury's emotions better wins.
If I boil water in my house and whilst maneuvering the pot to drain the pasta into the colander I spill it on myself.. do I sue T-Fal? Wolf? The water company? .. if the answer is no.. then why is that different? That water is going to be upwards of 200* in that case, well above McDonalds 190. What if the handle breaks off the pot because I didn't splurge on the $500 Williams Sonoma cookware and instead bought a piece of crap at Ikea. Do I get to sue Ikea?
Life and ****ty things happen, there doesn't always have to be someone else to blame
McD policy was brew at 205 deg and serve at 190 so that when the average customer got to their destination (20 mins) the coffee would be at desired 120-140 deg to drink. The fact that there were 700+ previous McD coffee burn incidents, most with 2nd/3rd degree burns, along with no change in McD policy/markings and McD’s "poor" defense is what led to the punitive award. The jury explained the reasons for the award which equated to 2 days profit at McD. The elderly lady never denied spilling the coffee. She just didn’t expect to be permanently scarred with extensive medical bills over a cup of coffee. It was the severity of the burn that tipped the scale as this was not just some reddened skin or a few blisters.
So as to where to draw the line, if you went to the same pizzaria as bflynn and got a little impatient, biting into a hot slice of pizza that burns your mouth shut because its hotter than you reasonably expected, you're good with that?
I don't usually weigh in on the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. But this thread drift compels me to ask: If @Tantalum served @bflynn a pizza with radioactive cheese heated to a temperature of 10,000 degrees and posted a Tiktok of the results, would @Bell206's reaction video get more views, and which video would be sponsored by Raptor Aircraft?
realistically if it was *that* hot you'd know better than to eat it.. but if the box tipped out of my hands and put hot oily pizza down my legs I just don't think I'd think to sue, at least not for the pizza being hot. I'd be enraged at myself (surely) and if anything p!$$ed off with the company making the boxes that their design is so flimsy. If I spent 8 days in the hospital I'd be suing the box company, and curious why the pizza parlor buys uses such crappy boxes. (side bar, Dominoes has the most "robust" boxes imho. With the local family shops usually employing the "it barely stays together this is made of card stock" garbage)
We weren't raised in a litigious family. Not saying Stella was of the type, she offered to settle for $20K.. so McD sort of walked into that by fighting it. But it does set some precedent. The coffee was "not fit for human consumption" but she wasn't consuming it when she burned herself, she spilled it, after removing the lid. It was her own actions. If they're selling 500 million cups of coffee per day clearly the vast majority of people know to take care when consuming it. If she had burned her mouth shut while in the act of consumption I'd be more apt to agree with you
We can agree to disagree on this.. I just think sets up the potential for future slippery slope cases where the spectrum shifts.
Like this BS case: https://www.carscoops.com/2022/05/m...accidentally-kills-coworker-with-manual-jeep/
Here's the article. The TLDR is that the mechanic accidentally killed a fellow mechanic (couldn't drive manually, took foot of clutch, rammed coworker) but somehow the car's owner is deemed responsible. Madness
A Jeep Wrangler with a manual transmission is at the heart of a tragic and vexing legal dispute in Michigan that has ensnared an owner who was nowhere near his car when it was involved in a fatal accident.
The 2019 Wrangler was having its oil changed at Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge in Michigan on March 13, 2020, when a 19-year old mechanic who neither had a license nor knew how to operate a vehicle with a manual gearbox turned the vehicle on in order to let it run. Court documents indicate that the mechanic then took his foot off the clutch while it was in gear, causing it to lurch forward and run over another mechanic, Jeffrey Hawkins, instantly killing him.
The matter has drawn national attention because the family of the deceased mechanic is suing Sergio Enrique Diaz-Navarro, the owner of the car who handed it in to be serviced, accusing him of being “vicariously liable for the negligent acts,” reports the Kansas City Star. David Femminineo, the attorney representing the Hawkins estate, has argued that the situation is similar to an owner’s responsibility when they lend their car to a friend.
Please don't dump all over me for saying this....but may I kindly suggest that this entire thread belongs in the Hangar Talk forum?
Ha. It wouldn't be mine as I don't own a video camera. Having been directly and indirectly involved in tort cases it was an eye opening experience to learn the actual details of the infamous McD coffee case as I once shared the same opinion as above. And as I believe most plaintiff attorneys are disingenuous, I honestly think they got the McD case right based on my experience. But suffice to say, the point is being missed and I'll leave it at that.
Coffee is not just to drink, it warms frigid fingers too.
Construction job, February, one of the guys says "How about some coffee, my hands are freezing". Every one lines up and hands the low man a buck for MacDonald's coffee, and off he goes.
When he returns with a couple of those neat cardboard holders full of coffee cups, the first man takes his, and says "This coffee is cold!" and returns it. The rest do the same, and back to MCD the driver goes, and the manager says "Too bad, MCD lost a million dollar case, and we do not make hot coffee any more.
The real point here is that the outside of the cup tells you that the contents are hot, or very hot, or simply luke warm. The lady was simply careless, or inexperienced at drinking coffee. Her attorney made good use of some customer complaints of overly hot coffee, and ignored the much larger number of complaints of too cool coffee from other customers.
I personally dislike the taste of coffee, but on cold outdoor jobs, I send out for it, and drink it. The hotter, the better.
Better late than never, the thread has been locked while the MC discusses its fate.
edit: Moved and reopened.