Rotornut's posting of the LFP article has "nanny state" bells ringing in my ears.
Cessna's being sued because it builds a high-wing, single-engine aircraft that's commercially succesful because, like a Mercedes Sprinter van, it's the right size for the market, a flexible, tough and reliable workhorse. Those very same qualities are what put the aircraft in the line of danger, in that workhorses are always more likely to be pushed slightly beyond their limits.
Its shortcomings, if you can call the tendency of a slow-flying box to accumulate whatever ice is around during its normal flight profile, are known throughout the industry.
What, really, is the difference between taking a Cherokee or a Caravan into marginal icing conditions? The fact that there are eight pax vs three pressing to get home and saying "hell, let's at least give it a try"? The greater likelihood that the aircraft's being operated by a company a step up from air-taxi and aspiring to higher things?
It's down to the operator, and the pilot on Pellis Island, isn't it? I realise the suit Rotornut posted has nothing to do with this particular case and that it's early days to speculate about what the families of this acccident could be contemplating. But I'm sure anyone who reads the LFP article will have made the connection.
Sueing the aircraft manufacturer for its product not being up to flying perfectly in all conditions is simply ridiculous.