As mentioned above, the NTSB says the accident was caused by pilot error.
Unfortunately for Cessna, the rules of the NTSB preclude its reports from being used in court.
. . [quote]
TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION. . . . CHAPTER VIII--NATIONAL . .TRANSPORTATION. . SAFETY BOARD. . . .PART 835--TESTIMONY OF BOARD EMPLOYEES--. . . .Sec. 835.3 Scope of permissible testimony.
(a) Section 701(e) of the FA Act and section 304(c) of the Safety . .Act preclude the use or admission into evidence of Board accident . .reports in any suit or action for damages arising from accidents.
<hr></blockquote>
I'm sure Mr. Wolk's aim in this case was to try to improve aviation safety, and not to try to get a significant percentage of $480 million in fees... but one has to wonder if the jury would have made the same choice if they'd been given access to the facts.
On this side of the Atlantic, there is a tendency to see this kind of obscene award as an American problem. Not for long, I am sure. UK lawyers have won their battle to allow "no win, no fee" representation. They are now allowed to advertise. They will doubtless soon succeed in either raising statutory accident compensation to massively higher levels, or allowing courts to decide the awards.
If there were as many pilots in parliament as there are lawyers, we would have tax-free avgas, mostly uncontrolled airspace, no planning-permission required for airfields and lots more!
<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">