The cost of an error

Rein Hart said:
...Pilot error and negligence justify legal action.
Click to expand...

Seriously? To what useful and constructive end exactly? Enriching lawyers perhaps?
 
Bell206 said:
Curious. Ever lose someone close due to someone elses negligence? Hint, it doesn't matter how much you're worth.
Click to expand...

No I have not. But that still does not answer the question...to what beneficial end exactly.
What are they expecting? The assurance human pilots will never, ever, ever again make a mistake with fatal consequences?

I have dealt with more than my share of legal disputes in the corporate world over time. Some valuable life lessons have come from that experience.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation. Is this a fight with the insurance companies to pay out on the policy?
 
GRG55 said:
But that still does not answer the question...to what beneficial end exactly.
What are they expecting?
I have dealt with more than my share of legal disputes in the corporate world over time. Some valuable life lessons have come from that experience.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation.
Click to expand...
You’re overthinking the issue. Initially, it has zero to do with the money… rather everything to do with one of the most basic human emotions…grief. Once the attorneys get involved then the money aspects come to the front. In Bryant’s case, the money is probably more a figurative issue. But for your average plaintiff where the sole family bread winner was killed it becomes more a financial survival issue for the family. Just as in some of the other pax’s cases.

Have seen the grief both personally and in other roles. Regardless, to think all tort lawsuits start off strictly as a “money grab” is hardly the truth. What will be interesting is if the pax survivors decide to include the Bryant estate in their claimant.;)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Here is another cost: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06...-and-senate-introduce-helicopter-safety-bill/
Click to expand...

From the article:

LOS ANGELES — Legislation introduced Thursday in the House and Senate would require terrain awareness and warning systems and crash-resistant flight data and voice recorders on all helicopters that carry six or more passengers, which the bills’ authors say would prevent tragedies like the Jan. 26 Calabasas crash that killed Kobe Bryant and his daughter.


Uh huh. A TAWS installation in the accident helicopter wouldn't have prevented the crash. At best it would have given the pilot a few seconds knowledge that he had made some rather stupid decisions and was about to die. It's almost certain the CVR would have recorded nothing of probative value.
 
3393RP said:
Uh huh. A TAWS installation in the accident helicopter wouldn't have prevented the crash. At best it would have given the pilot a few seconds knowledge that he had made some rather stupid decisions and was about to die. It's almost certain the CVR would have recorded nothing of probative value.
Click to expand...

^^^ THIS ^^^
 
Guess now that five seat copters will become a bit more popular ...:rolleyes:
 
3393RP said:
LOS ANGELES — Legislation introduced Thursday in the House and Senate would require terrain awareness and warning systems and crash-resistant flight data and voice recorders on all helicopters that carry six or more passengers, which the bills’ authors say would prevent tragedies like the Jan. 26 Calabasas crash that killed Kobe Bryant and his daughter.
Click to expand...

Typical know nothing politicians saving the world yet again.
 
GRG55 said:
I have dealt with more than my share of legal disputes in the corporate world over time. Some valuable life lessons have come from that experience.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation. Is this a fight with the insurance companies to pay out on the policy?
Click to expand...

So you’ve had corporate legal battles that you likely didn’t think were fair or just and you spent thousands to your attorneys and for that you feel the families who lost their daughters and husbands are in the same boat as you? I’ve had many many people walk into my office and tell me “they’ve never sued anyone and they’re not out for money - but they can’t see how the person who caused there suffering just walks away and they have a lifetime of suffering.”

I’ve also seen people get large recoveries and then set up a foundation or a trust in their child’s name to help other people. You’re rather myopic view of the legal system doesn’t compare to people who’ve suffered life altering tragedy and it represents such an extremely cynical bias against the people lost loved ones in this crash. Who knows what will come of the legal battle but I can tell you “Mrs Pilot” will not be called to testify, provide information, or likely be involved in the litigation for 5 minutes nor will she pay a dime. Insurance companies will pay for this. She also is a victim and is suffering. May she has a claim against her husband’s employer, but that would be an entirely different case with issues of workman’s compensation law, etc. as opposed to straight negligence.
 
Bell206 said:
Have seen the grief both personally and in other roles. Regardless, to think all tort lawsuits start off strictly as a “money grab” is hardly the truth. What will be interesting is if the pax survivors decide to include the Bryant estate in their claimant.;)
Click to expand...

I can tell you as a plaintiff on a number of lawsuits in the past and presently that this is exactly correct. Some I do even though it does not pay because it is the right thing to do. Others I do both because I think it is right and because it will at least pay the legal bills.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I can tell you as a plaintiff on a number of lawsuits in the past and presently that this is exactly correct. Some I do even though it does not pay because it is the right thing to do. Others I do both because I think it is right and because it will at least pay the legal bills.
Click to expand...
Shoot, as a lawyer and a potential plaintiff, my own lawyer (and friend) told me what a lawsuit was going to cost and that he thought the defendants would be judgment proof. It likely won't even pay the legal bills. But as I told him, they ****ed me over, and the alternative was zero consequences.
 
Lindberg said:
Shoot, as a lawyer and a potential plaintiff, my own lawyer (and friend) told me what a lawsuit was going to cost and that he thought the defendants would be judgment proof. It likely won't even pay the legal bills. But as I told him, they ****ed me over, and the alternative was zero consequences.
Click to expand...

You have to decide if you can afford the cost and want to pay it as a price of sending a message. As a lawyer I assume your costs are less.

Don't do those often, but the last one I was going to do like this the potential defendant decided it was wise to sign a settlement agreement which admitted responsibility and to make some effort at repayment. So sometimes they work out in some other way.
 
GRG55 said:
A widow with a net worth in the hundreds of millions of $ is suing the estate of a helicopter pilot...for hundreds of millions of $.

Blood from a stone comes to mind.
Click to expand...
I suspect there is insurance. Probably not hundreds of millions of dollars, but probably a few million. Given the damages, I would anticipate a policy limits settlement in pretty short order.
 
GRG55 said:
No I have not. But that still does not answer the question...to what beneficial end exactly.
Click to expand...
Economists would say, "to internalize the externalities." Yeah, no dollar figure will make the family whole. But if there is no consequence to conduct that we deemed to be less than what a reasonable person would do under the same circumstances, then some folks would look at the calculus and decide to make riskier decisions that what are good for society since they bear no cost of their errors when things go south.

Practical folks might say, "In order to provide some type of justice, however imperfect, so as to prevent the aggrieved from grabbing pitch forks or weapons and settling the score themselves."
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
Yeah, no dollar figure will make the family whole. But if there is no consequence to conduct that we deemed to be less than what a reasonable person would do under the same circumstances, then some folks would look at the calculus and decide to make riskier decisions that what are good for society since they bear no cost of their errors when things go south.
Click to expand...

And herein lies the problem. Quite regularly, competent pilots fly perfectly good aircraft into the ground, and I'd imagine most of these pilots are "reasonable people".

So the solution to make sure there is a consequence for doing this, is to sue the company. The company who applied every level of scrutiny required by the FAA, if not more, to insure this was a competent pilot. Additionally, they required yearly training and checkrides to again insure this was a competent pilot. So why would the company be responsible after doing everything they can to insure safety?

And just about every day in this country alone, much less other places in the world, helicopter pilots operate in conditions similar or worst than the accident pilot. Yet, these pilots who do this for a living, don't fly their helicopters into the ground.

The facts are, this pilot was flying legally, in legal weather, and the weather was not the cause of the crash. The cause of the crash was the pilots decision to fly the way he was flying in that type of weather.

I'm fairly sure this pilot didn't go out that day intending to kill anyone, much less himself. Did he make some absolute completely dumbass decisions? He certainly did, and he paid the ultimate price for a mistake. In my opinion, the only person responsible for this incident, is the PIC.
 
SToL said:
In my opinion, the only person responsible for this incident, is the PIC.
Click to expand...

That may be true. Our jurisprudence system long ago determined that under such circumstances, the master should be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the servant. You face an uphill battle getting a majority to go along with abolishing that rule. Heck, a vocal group of our citizens don't even like the idea of corporations having any rights, let alone immunity for negligent acts of its employees.
 
PPC1052 said:
That may be true. Our jurisprudence system long ago determined that under such circumstances, the master should be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the servant. You face an uphill battle getting a majority to go along with abolishing that rule. Heck, a vocal group of our citizens don't even like the idea of corporations having any rights, let alone immunity for negligent acts of its employees.
Click to expand...
Because money.
 
Lawyers take these cases on "Commission" effectively... she isn't out of pocket and the lawyers won't earn a dime until Kobe's wife wins... could take 4-5 years. The most they will recover is a million or two from the Helo Co's insurance company... and very little from "the estate"... if anything. I believe this is more a threat and/or a public vetting of the late/great star's value than anything...regarding his other business ventures/partners. Of course it is petty, especially the Pilot's estate. This whole issue can be filed in the "people su$%" column...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top