Originally Posted by
Easy Street
I don't understand where you're trying to go with that. Are you saying that Hill couldn't possibly be grossly negligent, because he was the one most likely to die if he crashed? That would fall down because negligent acts don't have to be intended: the legal definition of negligence is essentially 'failure to take proper care'.
Yes, that much is self-evident.
Bear in mind also that in the criminal trial gross negligence manslaughter was exactly what the pilot was indicted for, albeit the jury didn't agree that the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. to the standard of proof required in a criminal court.