Lawsuits Flying In Lidle Crash By Russ Niles, Contributing Editor The families of former New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor Tyler Stanger claim the crash of their Cirrus SR20 into a Manhattan apartment building was caused by a “catastrophic failure of the flight control system.” A statement released by Todd Macaluso, the lawyer representing the families of Lidle and Stanger, claims that FAA and NTSB data show that Cirrus aircraft have “a history of aileron failures” and “there have been other accidents involving flight control failures, several of which resulted in deaths.” The suit also names Teledyne, Hartzel Propeller, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice Aviation. The NTSB has not yet determined a cause for the Oct. 11 crash, but an update to its preliminary report released in early November focuses on the role of a 13-knot crosswind in the accident and makes no mention of control anomalies. Cirrus has declined comment on details of the crash investigation. New York television station NY1 says the cause of the crash will determine whether Lidle’s family gets a $1 million insurance payout from Major League Baseball. Meanwhile, the owner of an apartment 13 floors above the impact point is suing Lidle’s family for $7 million, claiming the crash ruined his home. Dr. Lawrence Rosenthal claims the crash loosened bricks, broke windows and caused extensive smoke damage to his apartment, which is actually three suites joined together to form a single residence. Rosenthal’s lawyer, David Jaroslawicz, told reporters last week that “everything was destroyed” in his client’s apartment and he and his family had to move out. Lidle’s plane hit the 30th floor of the apartment building on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. The engine was ejected into an apartment, but most of the plane bounced off the building and fell to the street. Lidle and Stanger were sightseeing in a strip of VFR airspace called the East River Exclusion Area when the pilot (it hasn’t been determined who was flying) tried to make a U-turn at the northern boundary of the area.
I can understand why Teledyne, S-Tec, and Honeywell would be included if the suers are trying to claim that electronic fault(s) caused the crash, but what fascinates and puzzles me is whyHartzel Propeller is included in the lawsuit ?
Ahhhh America, the land where its always someone else's fault and taking responsibility for your actions is a mortal sin....
i guess now the price of every cirrus sold now will double....
i was initially going to suggest that flying below the highest buildings in a built up area might be dangerous....no matter what aircraft you are flying....
Chimbu....Maybe thats the point and Hartzel Propeller is included in the lawsuit because when the wreckage fell onto the street the prop left the scene of an accident?
The US lawyers are nothing but incompetent ar$eholes when it comes to stuff like this. I am surprised Textron Lycoming are not also named, they make aircraft engines too ya know!!!
I met the owners of an industrial gearbox manufacturing company over there a few years back, they explained why their insurance costs were spiralling up, and one reason was they got sued in a case like this when a farmer did something stupid (completely stupid) and the machine manufacturer had used a gearbox similar to one they made, but not even of their manufacture. Of course they did not get nailed in the end, but the cost in defending yourself for something this silly was huge, really huge!
So yeah, its likely the paint supplier will be next!
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Also resident of page 13.
Age: 44
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
The NTSB has not yet determined a cause for the Oct. 11 crash
Lawyers, Hummpfh!
Quote:
an update to its preliminary report released in early November focuses on the role of a 13-knot crosswind in the accident and makes no mention of control anomalies.
They were flying around Manhattan! Were they practic(s)ing turns around a point below the level of the buildings?
Jenna....We ARE getting close to what the US is like but we are not there yet.
Many years ago a German car manufacturer was looking at introducing a car onto the US market with ABS brakes. From memory it was the 60's but might have been a bit later.
This manufacturer was advised by their legal eagles in the US not to introduce the car with ABS .This was because they were concerned that if a driver of one of their cars braked hard enough and a local car behind it could not stop in time and an accident occurred they would be sued.
The rationale behind this was that the local car owner could successfully argue in a US court that the German car was dangerous because it's brakes were better than other cars on the road at that time.
We are starting to become like this but hopefully it will never be as bad
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
