Lord save us from the lawyers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45121912/ns/us_news-life/

Ridiculous and sad. Hopefully when the court hears that nobody forced the deceased to go, they throw it out. I'd say he died happy.

I put my thoughts into a pile of some pretty vicious electrons........( or 1s and 0s if you prefer)
About lawyers and people like that and what they have done and continue to do to the country.....
But I deleted it all since I don't want to be the one to put this into 'Hot Air' and don't need a 'private message' from the nice man/men who work to herd us cats.....

I expect you get the drift......
lc

Littlecub wrote:I put my thoughts into a pile of some pretty vicious electrons........( or 1s and 0s if you prefer)
About lawyers and people like that and what they have done and continue to do to the country.....

The lawyers are a double edged sword. There's a reason they got to be like that, back in the "industrial revolution" and depression days the companies and big robber barons really did treat others pretty poorly, and the average Joe was still usually a beggar, no matter how hard he worked. So under certain circumstances, there was and is a need for lawyers to defend the downtrodden masses, and unions to negotiate good wages, etc.

Nowdays, the unions and the lawyers have gone way too #($*#& far in a lot of cases, and everything is off balance in the other direction.

But those massive labor unions and hair-trigger lawyers didn't come into existence for nothing.

I was more or less surprised that it took so long for this first suit to be filed and $25MM seems almost compassionately low.
Always entertaining to see the outrage such lawsuits cause. Those who yell the loudest are usually the first to sue when their own families and relatives are affected.

Seeing the lawsuit called "frivolous" seems a a painful joke and underlines the fact that the majority of people do not understand law and do not necessarily have a grip on what constitutes a tort. Of course nobody forced the victims to go, but lest you want them (and all their relatives) all to sign a piece of paper that states that they are willing to have a screaming pile of metal rip them to pieces at any given time and for no good reason, you'll have to deal with the fact that people did not go to the event to get killed.

Going to any event or large gathering of people to watch something crazy, does not constitute an acceptance or awareness of increased risk for life and limb. It's reasonable to expect to walk away in one piece, even if there are incidents/ accidents.

I wonder what the true consequences of this whole will be, after the dust settles.

Soo.....
You go to an event where big chunks of metal are zooming around the sky at high rates of speed......
and you are sitting 'almost' underneath. You saying people can't put 2+2 together and recognize they are assuming some risk??????? Folks, HAVE WE GOTTEN THAT STUPID???

lc

JJBAKER wrote:I was more or less surprised that it took so long for this first suit to be filed and $25MM seems almost compassionately low.
Always entertaining to see the outrage such lawsuits cause. Those who yell the loudest are usually the first to sue when their own families and relatives are affected.

Seeing the lawsuit called "frivolous" seems a a painful joke and underlines the fact that the majority of people do not understand law and do not necessarily have a grip on what constitutes a tort. Of course nobody forced the victims to go, but lest you want them (and all their relatives) all to sign a piece of paper that states that they are willing to have a screaming pile of metal rip them to pieces at any given time and for no good reason, you'll have to deal with the fact that people did not go to the event to get killed.

Going to any event or large gathering of people to watch something crazy, does not constitute an acceptance or awareness of increased risk for life and limb. It's reasonable to expect to walk away in one piece, even if there are incidents/ accidents.

I wonder what the true consequences of this whole will be, after the dust settles.

25 mil being compassionately low ? Where is the compassion when 40-60% of the settlement goes to lawyers?
I personally do not feel that the Reno Air races are "something crazy". Are we ready to relegate our lives to living in bunkers listening to the radio. The rise in popularity of adrenalin generating activities states that we are not. With these activities comes risk. It is extremely sad for all involved in an accident, but is the answer a law suit against the family of the dead pilot.
Recreational use statutes are a Godsend for use of private lands by the public. It is for this reason we all need to protect our access to recreation and accept the inherent risk. And yes, there is a risk that I could get hit by a "screaming pile of metal" space junk

Littlecub wrote:Soo.....
You go to an event where big chunks of metal are zooming around the sky at high rates of speed......
and you are sitting 'almost' underneath. You saying people can't put 2+2 together and recognize they are assuming some risk??????? Folks, HAVE WE GOTTEN THAT STUPID???

lc

Lots of things qualify for the designation of "stupid" and it really depends on which viewpoint you choose to take, victim or tortfeasor.
If your viewpoint is that simple attendance as a spectator during any aviation event is equivalent to giving up all rights for personal safety and security, then sure, attendance of any event could be classified as stupid. In order to make that point clear, you'd have to put up a sign that reads:

"By attending this event, you are assuming an indeterminable risk of personal/ bodily injury or death by crashing airplanes, flying debris and sudden onsets of panic in case of incident/ accident." You'd also have to have each guest sign a waiver, and possibly a form that holds everyone free and clear of liability in case of such. Dear Joe, if you come in here, you can't sue the crap out of us if something happens to you. As everything, each form would have to have a legal disclaimer and be absolutely watertight, so it couldn't be ripped apart in court later.

The problem is that people pay good money to attend such events and organizers and stake/ shareholders of that event have and assume a liability towards the personal safety of each spectator. It is not unreasonable to expect to walk away from any and all events one attends. If things have in fact gotten so unsafe that this safety cannot be assured, the victim has a right to have determined who was at fault in their taking damage, injury or death. This includes slipping on a banana skin, ice or breaking through a barrier, or getting hit by an out of control chunk of screaming terror. Taken to the extreme, every event would have to state clearly that only people with a death wish may attend. Taken one step further: If nothing happened suicidal people could take you to court for not killing them...

The current Tort Law allows the legal action to be taken against anyone who could be reasonably expected to hold any responsibility for the safety of people. As with all things Aviation, there is a LOT of money on the table, up for grabs in case of accidents. Whoever took this case must have carefully evaluated that there is some money to be made. Some people have made it their life goal to be injured and take someone to court for millions as a result. It seems to beat working and may present a golden parachute for a whole family or multiple generations in very desperate times. You can't really blame people for trying what they can to make a buck and you can't blame people for the fact that our legal system lacks a lot of common sense. We'd need tort reform to change the cards on the table. When there is a choice between $$'s and Common Sense, many people grabbing the dollars, ergo I don't see Tort Reform anytime soon.

Considering the fact that lawyers usually get awarded a percentage of the settlement/ judgment, I'd say 25MM is compassionately low.

Littlecub wrote:Soo.....
You go to an event where big chunks of metal are zooming around the sky at high rates of speed......
and you are sitting 'almost' underneath. You saying people can't put 2+2 together and recognize they are assuming some risk??????? Folks, HAVE WE GOTTEN THAT STUPID???

lc

YES!! A lot (too many!) of people have, LC!!

In the motorcycle biz I work. I see and hear a lot of stupid..... no, no, I mean absolutely down right amazingly very stupid crap! A bunch of you know who I work for, so I'm sure you get the picture on that one.

But really??? Some idiot is so stupid to put his finger between a sprocket and chain on his bike while it's in gear and a bike stand and get's his finger cut off?!?! THEN, turns around and sues the manufacture because there was no gaurd to prevent him from putting his finger where it shouldn't be?!?!? Give me a break!!!! BTW....... very true story.

When my EAA Chapter has an event for flying Young Eagles, we make arrangements with the EAA to be covered by the insurance they offer for such activities. I would assume that the Reno Air Races also carry a fair amount of insurance, and pay a hefty amount for it, to be covered in case an accident occurs.

I would be interested in how that insurance is used to compensate the people that were injured and killed. A lawsuit would imply that the insurance was inadequate or there were special circumstances involved that exacerbated the situation.

JJBAKER wrote:

Littlecub wrote:Soo.....
You go to an event where big chunks of metal are zooming around the sky at high rates of speed......
and you are sitting 'almost' underneath. You saying people can't put 2+2 together and recognize they are assuming some risk??????? Folks, HAVE WE GOTTEN THAT STUPID???

lc

Lots of things qualify for the designation of "stupid" and it really depends on which viewpoint you choose to take, victim or tortfeasor.
If your viewpoint is that simple attendance as a spectator during any aviation event is equivalent to giving up all rights for personal safety and security, then sure, attendance of any event could be classified as stupid. In order to make that point clear, you'd have to put up a sign that reads:

"By attending this event, you are assuming an indeterminable risk of personal/ bodily injury or death by crashing airplanes, flying debris and sudden onsets of panic in case of incident/ accident." You'd also have to have each guest sign a waiver, and possibly a form that holds everyone free and clear of liability in case of such. Dear Joe, if you come in here, you can't sue the crap out of us if something happens to you. As everything, each form would have to have a legal disclaimer and be absolutely watertight, so it couldn't be ripped apart in court later.

The problem is that people pay good money to attend such events and organizers and stake/ shareholders of that event have and assume a liability towards the personal safety of each spectator. It is not unreasonable to expect to walk away from any and all events one attends. If things have in fact gotten so unsafe that this safety cannot be assured, the victim has a right to have determined who was at fault in their taking damage, injury or death. This includes slipping on a banana skin, ice or breaking through a barrier, or getting hit by an out of control chunk of screaming terror. Taken to the extreme, every event would have to state clearly that only people with a death wish may attend. Taken one step further: If nothing happened suicidal people could take you to court for not killing them...

The current Tort Law allows the legal action to be taken against anyone who could be reasonably expected to hold any responsibility for the safety of people. As with all things Aviation, there is a LOT of money on the table, up for grabs in case of accidents. Whoever took this case must have carefully evaluated that there is some money to be made. Some people have made it their life goal to be injured and take someone to court for millions as a result. It seems to beat working and may present a golden parachute for a whole family or multiple generations in very desperate times. You can't really blame people for trying what they can to make a buck and you can't blame people for the fact that our legal system lacks a lot of common sense. We'd need tort reform to change the cards on the table. When there is a choice between $$'s and Common Sense, many people grabbing the dollars, ergo I don't see Tort Reform anytime soon.

Considering the fact that lawyers usually get awarded a percentage of the settlement/ judgment, I'd say 25MM is compassionately low.

NO, you should NOT have to put up any sign!!!!!! People need to take some responsibility for themselves and quit trying for the quick bucks! If you go to an event where there is a possibility of getting hurt or killed, then it should be YOUR responsibility. That being said, if the people that put on that event take no precautions, and a very dangerous situation exists, YOU should walk away. "Out of control chunk of screaming terror" sounds like a lawyer to me, and a hungry one... or else a government worker....certainly not someone with their feet planted in the real world! So you think 25MM is compassionately low? What if it were waged against YOU? I think it's a total pile of crap! It all boils down to one thing....greed, and that's what's running the country anymore....greed from citizens, lawyers, polititions, etc....... How sad!

Correct me if I'm wrong...doesn't buying a pit pass at Reno constitute your waiver to sue the event holder? Last time there in '06 when I bought a pit pass. Now I know the P-51 hit the box seats but it's the pits I'm talking about here.
HC

hicountry wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong...doesn't buying a pit pass at Reno constitute your waiver to sue the event holder? Last time there in '06 when I bought a pit pass. Now I know the P-51 hit the box seats but it's the pits I'm talking about here.
HC

Not sure, but pretty certain that someone of higher intellectual capacity and a better understanding of the law may be able to answer that. The problem is that little waivers on the back of tickets are frequently invalid and do not in fact constitute appropriate protection from lawsuits in all cases.

hardtailjohn wrote:NO, you should NOT have to put up any sign!!!!!! People need to take some responsibility for themselves and quit trying for the quick bucks! If you go to an event where there is a possibility of getting hurt or killed, then it should be YOUR responsibility. That being said, if the people that put on that event take no precautions, and a very dangerous situation exists, YOU should walk away.

I can understand how you would be upset about such a lawsuit and I can see your point in comparing what you "wish" for people to be and what they "should" do, with what they actually are and do. Comparing a perfect world with reality sometimes hurts.

"Out of control chunk of screaming terror" sounds like a lawyer to me, and a hungry one... or else a government worker....certainly not someone with their feet planted in the real world! So you think 25MM is compassionately low? What if it were waged against YOU? I think it's a total pile of crap! It all boils down to one thing....greed, and that's what's running the country anymore....greed from citizens, lawyers, polititions, etc....... How sad!

I doubt someone would launch a $25MM lawsuit against me, or at least an attorney trying to do so would need to go back to lawschool. You sue people for "what they are worth" and not some fictitious number. The attorney determined that roughly $25MM was what could be extracted and went for it. I am sure they are going to settle for quite a bit less, unless the suit stalls. I used the words "out of control chunk of screaming terror" because I figured that's what the people hit by it must have thought, shortly before it hit them. Was it out of control? Yes. Was it's engine screaming at high power? Yes. Did it inflict terror? Yes. Something nice to see turned into something pretty terrible to watch.

I am neither a lawyer nor a government worker - but - just because fellow aviation enthusiasts think a lawsuit is "total pile of crap" does not change the fact that it was filed in accordance with the current tort system, which allowed for it. I guess it cooks down to what and how logically you wish to discuss the issue. The system allows for the lawsuit to be there - like it or not. Want to change it? Change the system. That's really all I am saying.

Change the system - ha. Going to the fox to ask him to give up guarding the chicken!

dawgdriver wrote:Change the system - ha. Going to the fox to ask him to give up guarding the chicken!

Exactly. Asking 300+ Million people to collectively give up on the biggest free lottery there ever was, while applying common sense in their everyday lives. Good luck!

The answer is elect politicians that are not lawyers. Seems from the president down we are filled with the foxes.

You can bet that RARA does not have $25mil and/or their insurance company has limits much lower than that, the same with the plane owner. This will bankrupt both and therefor say goodby to racing.

Skystrider wrote: I would assume that the Reno Air Races also carry a fair amount of insurance, and pay a hefty amount for it, to be covered in case an accident occurs.

I would be interested in how that insurance is used to compensate the people that were injured and killed. A lawsuit would imply that the insurance was inadequate or there were special circumstances involved that exacerbated the situation.

Glidergeek wrote: You can bet that RARA does not have $25mil and/or their insurance company has limits much lower than that, the same with the plane owner. This will bankrupt both and therefor say goodby to racing.

RARA carries a $100 Mil liability policy that costs them upwards of $350,000 in premium, the airport carries a $300 Mil policy (which excludes air racing), and the GG Race team carried $5 Mil which they chose to purchase above the required $1 Mil. A typical fatal loss in aviation settles for between $3 - $5 million so the $25 million could be considered excessive but as JJBaker mentioned, the lawyer will go for the max knowing it will settle for less. There is a reasonable duty of care owed to attendees at an event like this and the definition of that duty will be weighed against the determination of negligence to determine the liability in this accident. Did RARA and all those involved do what was reasonable and prudent to prevent a loss of this type or were they negligent in doing so? Could they have done more to prevent the accident and was it reasonable to have thought of it's possibility and taken steps to prevent it? Keep in mind that their has not been a spectator fatality nor any close calls in this event throughout it's history so be cautious when you make your judgement of what is reasonable and if they were negligent. Some have said that the public should be inside the race oval instead of outside on the straight away...if the aircraft was out of control it could have just as easily gone down inside the oval so what would have been considered reasonable then? What if one of the jet pilots became incapacitated and the aircraft flew into downtown before crashing into a casino...should they have planned for that scenario and had SAMs lining a perimeter to shoot them down in that event? Reasonable and prudent will be the key determinates. Sometimes accidents happen with every reasonable and prudent safety guard in place...there does not always have to be someone responsible who must compensate the rest who chose to participate.

The lawsuit names the Leeward family along with the mechanic and I have a feeling both will be thrown out with the only entities held in the lawsuit being GG Race Team and RARA. The mechanic was acting as an employee of and under the direction of the GG Race Team and as such cannot be sued individually. The GG race team is a privately owned corporation which is independent of the Leeward family and their other business entities. Jimmy was an officer of the corporation as well as an "employee" so once again the family cannot be held liable for the actions of the company or it's employees.

Lets take this whole accident and lawsuit a bit deeper. The insurance limits that I listed above will probably be exhausted in this accident due to the number of injuries and the fatals. With that in mind...these limits are independent of the defense costs and we all know that there will be numerous lawsuits. The more lawsuits that are filed, the more the cost of defense will rise causing the actual loss of this accident to increase exponentially. If the insurance company settles out of court on this first lawsuit for X dollars they will save themselves considerable defense cost and the chance that they may lose the case, but they will set a precedence for the remaining lawsuits. Any way you cut it, this will be a huge cost to the insurance companies. Some are worried that the government will shut down the races and airshows, but the one that you should be worried about is the insurance companies. Without insurance there will not be any more races or airshows...whether that lack of insurance comes from unavailability or unafordability is a moot point.

By the way, the same companies that underwrite RARA and the race teams also write your insurance. Only $5 Million of the $100 Mil was held domestically...the balance was reinsured through Lloyds of London who back all the US markets and set the base rates. The magnitude of the ultimate insurance loss on this accident will effect all of us so we should all be concerned about "compassionately low" lawsuits.

Thanks for that information lowflybye! It would appear that they were adequately insured even with so many injured and killed. I would expect that a lawsuit would only be filed after an adequate settlement with the insurance company could not be reached. Is that not how it is normally done?

Skystrider wrote:Thanks for that information lowflybye! It would appear that they were adequately insured even with so many injured and killed. I would expect that a lawsuit would only be filed after an adequate settlement with the insurance company could not be reached. Is that not how it is normally done?

No, usually the lawsuit is filed before the insurance settlement...remember that your insurance policy is there to defend you in a lawsuit as well but once the policy limits are hit the claim file is closed. Usually the lawyer looks to discover the insured limit and takes that into account when setting the limit of the lawsuit. He also wants to get as much of that pie as possible so he wants to be one of the first suits filed to insure the limit is not exhausted. They are going more after the insurance "deep pockets" than they are the defendants...somehow that seems more justifiable to some people...like money "up for grabs" or "free" instead of coming from a company's pocket or those of their policyholders. Thankfully, the courts also take this into account when they consider the amount awarded on judgement...if the defendant took steps to help compensate third parties in the event of a loss (insurance) then it looks more favorably towards doing what is reasonable and prudent and takes away some of the plaintiff attorney's thunder in the form of punitive damage requests. It is like saying "I am doing all I can to make this event as safe as possible, but should something still go wrong I am doing all I can to help in that scenario as well".

BTW- there may be a per person limitation on that $100 Million overall limit...I do not know as I don't write the policy, but it would not be uncommon.