And we wonder why.....

[Jabawocky]

From Avweb

The parents of a skydiver killed in the crash of a Cessna Grand Caravan in October are suing Cessna claiming the aircraft was defective and shouldn’t have been flying in icing conditions. Bryan Jones was among 10 who died in the crash in the Cascade Mountains ...

Tell me they are joking! Like that was Cessna's fault. Any wonder you pay 50% for the plane or part and 50% to insurance companies & lawyers to fight off stupid claims like this.

J:ugh:

[Capt Wally]

.....jaba in the land of the "fee" anything is possible sadly when it comes to getting some sort of conpensation. And sadly that's all it really is after the event, compensation, 'cause it ain't gunna do the poor hapless pax any good now !
I can remember reading somewhere some years ago with a non aviation related incident involving stupidity at it's best. A woman in a supermarket in the land of the 'fee' (USA) was shopping with a young child whom grabbed a bottle of liquid & dropped it on the floor spilling the contents everywhere. The mother then promptly slipped on the liquid & consequently sued the supermarket!. She won if I remember correctly !

Also (sorry for diverting fm the original thread but the wx is bad !) anyone remember that accident where a guy bought a new Winnabago & sued for damages & won $millions I might add because he set the crusie control of the vehical on a public hwy then promptly got out of the drivers seat to make a coffee !!!!!!.......His lawyers claimed that there was no specific mention in the owners manual as to 'not' leave the drivers seat during cruise control ops !! That's one very slim grey area indeed !

Let's trust that sanity will prevail here if there is no fault found of the Cessna for the good of common sense.

Capt Wally :P-)

[UnderneathTheRadar]

..... I would agree with you but in this case there are known/repeated issues with C208s flight in to known icing. Someone will correct me I'm sure but I have a feeling certification for flight into known icing was pulled in Canada after a spate of accidents?

That Cessna haven't taken action to address the issue would seem to be at the centre of this lawsuit.

UTR

[OZBUSDRIVER]

It never is the fault of the dirt darts wanting to be flown into known icing conditions.

Regardless if the aircraft is or was certified. Does this still allow jumping operations into what would be marginal vis wx for a drop?

[VH-XXX]

There was no "jumping" on this day or in these conditions. It was a repositioning flight where it seems the aircraft flew into terrain in bad weather.

[PLovett]

You have to understand the US litigation scene which to a large extent is being followed in Australia.

First rule: Follow the money. There is no use sueing someone who hasn't a brass razoo to their name. Who has insurance cover? The aircraft manufacturer.

Second rule: Spin a heart-breaking tale to a jury about the agony of the loss and the lives ruined.

Jury puts 1 and 2 together and says, ".....we'll its really the insurance company that has to pay so we will award damages."

Little wonder Cessna got out of single engine piston aircraft until product liability legislation was introduced. Now it looks as though the Caravan is the target. Look for price rises in the future.:mad:

[Jamair]

....or the woman in the US who spilled coffee in her lap in the Mucdonalds drive-thru, and sued same because coffee was hot - and won. Thus we now see 'Caution - contents may be hot' on coffee and food containers.

[Zhaadum]

Americans are idiots. There should be a law against them. :}

[bushy]

At first glance the solution is not to have insurance, and then you will not be sued because there is no money to get. But then the people you deal with know that they will be the target so they insist you buy insurance to protect them.
It all drives up the cost, and encourages stupid legal things. A self perpetuating stupidity.

[Pinky the pilot]

Did'nt William Shakespeare say in one of his plays something along the lines of;
Come the revolution, first shoot all the Lawyers!

[Andy_RR]

I think UTR has hit the nail on the head, however it still astounds me the level of engineering certainty that is found within the courtroom that never seems to reveal itself in the real world.

A

[AerocatS2A]

....or the woman in the US who spilled coffee in her lap in the Mucdonalds drive-thru, and sued same because coffee was hot - and won. Thus we now see 'Caution - contents may be hot' on coffee and food containers.

You should do a bit of research on that one. It sounds great as a sound bite like you've got there (word bite?) but the coffee produced by McDs at the time was genuinly too hot and they knew it, but wouldn't change it. Too hot as in can't drink it and it physically burns you if you spill it on yourself.

[Sunfish]

Jamair, Mc Donalds control every phase of their operations including the temperature of the coffee to the nearest degree.

They had had previous scalding incidents.

They had been repeatedly warned about the danger.

They refused point blank to do anything about the danger even though they had more than enough cold hard concrete evidence that it existed....

They were sued for negligence, and quite rightly lost the case.

Just try pouring almost boiling coffee into your lap and see what it feels like..



PLovett has it right... because the USA has a rotten social services infrastructure and a broken and highly expensive health care system, an accident can literally mean that your family becomes destitute and your children don't get educated at all. Your only remedy in the event of even the smallest accident is to sue, and the trick is to look for the player who has the most money - usually the manufacturer.

Thats why you see asinine warnings written all over American products.

[notmyC150v2]

There is a website from the USA which holds "Stella Awards" for rediculous law suits. The link is http://www.stellaawards.com

By the way, the one about the Winnebago driver and the cruise control is an urban legend / web myth. the real ones are stupid enough without needing inventions.

[PLovett]

At first glance the solution is not to have insurance, and then you will not be sued because there is no money to get. But then the people you deal with know that they will be the target so they insist you buy insurance to protect them.
It all drives up the cost, and encourages stupid legal things. A self perpetuating stupidity.

bushy, when next we meet remind me to tell you the story of one of my clients who was interested in sky diving so the local jump site (in your neck of the woods) put a parachute on him and put him in the back of the plane as an observer only. :=

Due to non-compliance with regulations the seat rails had not been taped over so that after the parachutists had exited the aircraft my client crawled across the floor to a better sitting position. A seat rail snagged the parachute release. It went out the open door followed by my still attached client. He hit the tail plane of the aircraft on the way past. The chute opened but my client was unconscious when he hit the ground.:uhoh:

His injuries to his head and face were devastating. He lived in a world of pain thereafter. My client sued the jump site operator, the pilot and the aircraft owner who had leased the aircraft to the jump site.The jump site operator didn't have insurance. The pilot didn't have insurance. The aircraft owner did. My client won his case against all parties and was awarded substantial damages. The insurance company refused to honour the contract as the aircraft had not been insured as a jump aircraft nor was it being operated in accordance with the relevant regulations.:yuk:

I represented this man on other matters while he was still fighting to get the insurance company to pay up. The case was being fought all the way to the High Court where it was waiting to be heard. In the end it all became too much and he took his own life rather than continue with his appalling life that he had been reduced to.:mad:

Always have insurance when you deal with the public.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[blueloo]

Imagine ordering a coffee and expecting it not to be hot or boiling.

I dont know about you, but when i make a cup of tea or coffee, I usually boil a kettle - and as far as I can tell it gets pretty close to boiling hot.

[ABX]

I dont know about you, but when i make a cup of tea or coffee, I usually boil a kettle - and as far as I can tell it gets pretty close to boiling hot.

Far too much common sense in that one bluey.:ok:

...but hang on, it ain't too 'common' anymore is it?:eek:

I blame the pollies who have tried to legislate common sense into mere words in the Australian legislature. Due, of course, to the money grabbing lawyers who drove them to it.:ugh:

[Peter Fanelli]

And yet another C208 has crashed in icing conditions in Ohio in the last 12 hours or so.

[Jabawocky]

Should I rename this thread the C208 crashing in icing thread.......

Peter and any C208 drivers....hang on I know one well maybe I should ask him....not much ice up here though.....

WHAT is the C208 POH saying about flight into icing conditions?

What are the most common causes for C208 prangs in the USA? I see there have been many and maybe night freighters, is it icing, or rogues cutting corners till it bites them?

The plane seems quite a good machine, the PT6 a reliable engine if maintained properly.....what is the scoop?

Just some rough stats....of say 1500 produced about 10% crashed. At random quite a few seem to be weather related. Maybe pilots thinking is more an all weather a/c like a 737 than a single under 5700kg.

J:(

[Howard Hughes]

I don't 'wonder why', I just read the 'right to bare arms' thread in JB and realise that where Americans are concerned, these things are inevitable...:rolleyes:

[bushy]

You have mentioned that the insurance company would not pay in that instance.
It was certainly a very sad case. It was also a known hazard and I consider it was preventable. (Even without tape on the seat tracks)
I see a number of important points here.
1.Insurance is complex and in this case did not provide the protection needed.
2.Accidents like this are a known hazard and are often preventable.
3. Rules do not prevent accidents or provide safety. They may give guidance but mainly provide information for legal processes after the event.
4. Prevention is most important, and this comes from well informed, responsible leaders.

[Cinders]

Plovett,

I'm curious. What year did this incident occur?

C.

[PLovett]

I wasn't his lawyer for the negligence action but only represented him for other matters between 1994 and 97.

My now very imperfect memory of reading the case notes was that it was either late 80's oe very early 90's but I cannot be certain now.:(

[Outkast]

Sometimes you do hear about amazing people that could sue and don't.

After the Ansett Dash 8 crashed into the Tararuas in New Zealand, one of of the most injured surviving passengers decided not to be involved in a class action against , I think, the manufacturer. I saw an interview with this man and it was very inspiring. I can't remember his words, but the sentiment was that he felt that it actually was an accident. People make mistakes and he didn't feel right about pursuing that line of action. A case where in fact could have made a **** load of money, but decided it wasn't right for him. Not many people like that these days.

[PLovett]

Outkast

Not wishing to detract from your comments or the position taken by that survivor, however, in aviation I don't believe that there are "accidents". Crashes these days mostly occur due to mistakes committed by people. Sure, they didn't want to commit those mistakes but by so doing people get killed and injured.

Those injured and the relatives of those killed are then placed in a situation not of their making and often in a worse situation than if the crash had not occurred. In those circumstances the law says that if you can show that the injuries/loss were due to negligence of a person who owed a duty of care to the person injured or suffering a loss then that person is entitled to compensation.

In the NZ case I doubt whether that person owing the duty of care was the manufacturer but certainly the airline. The pilots are agents of the airline and the duty of care flows upward.

People often look at the damages awarded in such cases and think Tattslotto wins. However, in the US a lot of the extreme awards are reduced on appeal. In Australia the awards are more moderate given that judges set the award and not juries. However, please keep in mind that I have never met a person who was awarded compensation for injury or loss who wouldn't immediately pay it all back to be given back their health or loved one. Money is a poor compensator when you have lost your health to be able to enjoy it.

Not meant to be a rant but pointing out somethings that are often overlooked by the general public. Nor am I touting for my former profession which I left long ago.