C172 v King Air in Deni ?

[kaz3g]

I'm currently unemployed Kaz, one lawyer whom I have a very high regard for is a yank by the name of Dan Mori, he currently works in Melbourne. "In the company of cowards" is a book he has just released.
My question still stands how does litigation make for a better world? Was Australia a better place years ago before the drive to litigate?

Sorry about the personal circumstance...I've been there, too.

Putting aside the pre-supposition in your question, I'd say this.

Dan saw the abuses of human rights inflicted on Hicks and did his best to show them to the world during the trial. He has since successfully litigated against the U.S. military on at least two occasions to enforce his own rights: once when a motion to recuse was put on the basis of his marriage many years earlier to his then 17 yo wife; and again when his application for promotion to colonel was refused on blatantly political grounds.

Remember Rhonda McCabe? She took on Big Tobacco and sadly died before her case was finalised. But she changed the developed world view of ethics in both business and the law. The latter saw an incredible turn around in professional pro bono activity by law firm Clayton UTZ after their handling of the respondent's case came to light.

It's 7 years since Bernie Banton passed away from mesothelioma. But his determination to continue his litigation against James Hardie helped others who have been or will at some time in the future also be afflicted by this insidious disease.

I was living in St Andrews on 7 February 2009 and saw firsthand the devastation of my community on the day and during the weeks, months and years afterwards. Litigation has finally forced a massive compensation payout from the company responsible for providing electrical power even though it continued to deny liability as a condition of settlement.

Do you honestly think any of these outcomes would have been achieved without recourse to the Courts being available?

Back to the topic, perhaps....

Kaz

[Tidbinbilla]

Indeed. Back on topic, please.

[Geosync]

Being in aviation claims, I've seen it go both ways, but if the King Air was unoccupied and the 172 flat out hit it, the liability is pretty clear cut. Even if the KA was dead center in the middle of the taxiway a halfway decent lawyer can make a strong case that it was 100% the fault of the 172. The key fact is that the KA was parked with no crew inside. If the KA insurance company adjusters kick it to the lawyers, the 172 guys should just pay the darn claim and move on, or they'll end up spending more in defending their position with a good chance they'll lose the case anyway. It's a money game, and in the world of insurance, this is no big deal when there are $1,000,000 plus claims happening every day(yes, a simple birdstrike can cost big coin). Plus aviation insurance is a small world. If you try to stick it to a counterpart by not paying, it will catch up to you when the positions are reversed. The best action would be to settle it and move along.

[Grogmonster]

Enough

Can we please put this one to bed? Here are some facts. The Kingair was parked and locked. The pilot was in town nowhere near the aircraft. There were no lines marked. There was enough room to taxi another Kingair past the parked aircraft and probably room enough for a B737. It was the C172 pilot's fault clear and simple. So get over it and move on!

Groggy

[morno]

Here here Groggy. Our little C172 pilot that tried to shift the blame off himself has been awfully quiet since no one has really defended him.....

morno