$100 Million Settlement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$100 Million Settlement
Wow.
$100 million settlement for man critically injured in fiery Frisco, Colo., helicopter crash
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sh/1088199001/
$100 million settlement for man critically injured in fiery Frisco, Colo., helicopter crash
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sh/1088199001/
Noted in the article that 85% of helicopters flying today likewise wouldn't meet the new crashworthy standard, so are all those now grounded or uninsurable? Cause was pilot not switching on hydraulics, getting somewhat removed to after crash consequences. Must be a litigation US deal that the operator/OEM of an aircraft complying with a regulated certification standard can still be sued for not being "good enough". We can start to split hairs on whether any fuel system won't be compromised in a crash.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Spunk
As I don’t have any experience on As350, are all of them equipped with a “plastic tank”?
The H130 (EC130 T2) is fitted as standard with a new flexible bladder crashworthy tank, and Airbus has been working to adapt this for the H125 (AS350 B3e) as well.
Robertson Fuel Systems and StandardAero have also certified a retrofittable crashworthy bladder tank for the AS350, which was certified last December. Air Methods is a launch customer for that tank.
I/C
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Amory, MS
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is your (the operator’s / the owner’s / the pilot’s and now apparently also the OEM’s) third party liability. The awarded amount is newsworthy (and noteworthy to any of us who could be held liable). But the general liability for damages, loss of income, etc. pp. of accident victims (in your aircraft, or ‘innocent’ bystanders on the ground) has always been there, almost entirely regardless of your (be it pilot, operator’s, etc.) proven negligence or complete innocence.
Insurers are quite happy to offer TPL insurance per helicopter for USD 500k TPL cover (legal minimum for commercial operators in some countries) or maybe a few million dollars. If the claim against the insured exceeds the TPL cover, the insurer will pay up to the agreed max cover. You are liable for the balance.
But I agree. The question is how do we protect ourselves against TPL claims that may by far exceed any TPL cover that the operator possibly can afford.
I also foresee OEM’s to become more ruthless in the future in making mandatory via AD’s to retrofit any possible safety improvement (of course entirely at the owner’s expense) to the entire fleet, the moment a specific risk becomes known or a solution becomes available.
As much as we all feel with the victim of this horrific accident, such a settlement sets a dangerous precedent.
Why is it that claims in america look like telephone numbers and those in britain dont?
€100 million pay out is obscene. There isn't a human being alive who is worth that much.
The world has lost the plot.
€100 million pay out is obscene. There isn't a human being alive who is worth that much.
The world has lost the plot.
US Product Liability Litigation
Firstly, this was a horrible accident and my deepest sympathy go to the injured party for the trauma he has experienced and the loss of quality of life he will have to live with for the rest of his life. This is obviously terrible and I hope his portion of the settlement will restore some happiness to his life. However, I don't think $100M will make significant difference to having a more modest, but secure income for the rest of his life and sufficient funds to cover his on going medical costs. The $100M isn't about his needs, its about the commission driven lawyers pursuing a large corporate entity and it is largely a US problem.
The problem in the US is multi-faceted, but the three biggest issues are:
(a) Elected state court judges, whose positions depend in being elected by the populous. (You can infer for yourself how this might affect their judgements) I don't know if this hearing was a state court or federal court matter.
(b) Punitive Damages; in the US settlements not only provide costs to cover lost income and compensation for the victim, but all PUNISH the company deemed to have liability for the loss.
(c) No-win, no-fee lawyers on big commission, typically 30-40%. I could tell you some real horror stories about this...but obviously not on a public forum!
In 1978 the US alone produced 17,811 new light aircraft, this is down to around 2,000 now, thanks largely to the lawyers rendering the light end of the industry untenable.
If you wander why light aircraft still use 1950's technology, blame the lawyers and settlements like this, 30-40% of which would have gone to the lawyers. By 1985 the cost of insurance or pay outs was larger than the cost of the aircraft itself for smaller aircraft!
If you want to know why a Cessna 172 costed $80K (in todays money) in 1978 and around $350K today for exactly the same aircraft blame the lawyers.
In this industry we all understand that we take a degree of calculated risk in flying or operating in helicopters. If you don't want to be at risk of a crash, fly a desk, its a matter of personal choice. What has happened in the states, is that some well-meaning laws which apply to all areas of life and industry have had some very severe unintended consequences on industries that involve a degree of risk of harm that its operatives have been prepared to take in return for the lifestyle or rewards on offer. These laws have been exploited by commission hungry lawyers on the hunt for the next big corporate to sue for a big share of a telephone number pay out.
#brokensystem
The net result of this is that the USA is no loner a viable place to produce affordable light aircraft as every US aircraft carries with it a huge product liability cost that the rest of the world does not have to the same extent.
CRAN
The problem in the US is multi-faceted, but the three biggest issues are:
(a) Elected state court judges, whose positions depend in being elected by the populous. (You can infer for yourself how this might affect their judgements) I don't know if this hearing was a state court or federal court matter.
(b) Punitive Damages; in the US settlements not only provide costs to cover lost income and compensation for the victim, but all PUNISH the company deemed to have liability for the loss.
(c) No-win, no-fee lawyers on big commission, typically 30-40%. I could tell you some real horror stories about this...but obviously not on a public forum!
In 1978 the US alone produced 17,811 new light aircraft, this is down to around 2,000 now, thanks largely to the lawyers rendering the light end of the industry untenable.
If you wander why light aircraft still use 1950's technology, blame the lawyers and settlements like this, 30-40% of which would have gone to the lawyers. By 1985 the cost of insurance or pay outs was larger than the cost of the aircraft itself for smaller aircraft!
If you want to know why a Cessna 172 costed $80K (in todays money) in 1978 and around $350K today for exactly the same aircraft blame the lawyers.
In this industry we all understand that we take a degree of calculated risk in flying or operating in helicopters. If you don't want to be at risk of a crash, fly a desk, its a matter of personal choice. What has happened in the states, is that some well-meaning laws which apply to all areas of life and industry have had some very severe unintended consequences on industries that involve a degree of risk of harm that its operatives have been prepared to take in return for the lifestyle or rewards on offer. These laws have been exploited by commission hungry lawyers on the hunt for the next big corporate to sue for a big share of a telephone number pay out.
#brokensystem
The net result of this is that the USA is no loner a viable place to produce affordable light aircraft as every US aircraft carries with it a huge product liability cost that the rest of the world does not have to the same extent.
CRAN
A good example of how Tort adds to these costs can be seen in the US medical industry. Several reports have shown that 1/4 of all US medical procedures/stays are done strictly for legal reasons vs medical reasons to the tune of $300 to $600 Billion per year.
Go figure how much tort adds to the cost in aviation.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rules for liability for injuries in aircraft accidents is governed by the Warsaw convention and is subject to a limitation of liability, a limitation that is worth in the ballpark of $170,000.
The exception to the limitation of liability is if the carrier is negligent or does not issue the correct paperwork for the flight.
Without trawling through the legal judgement for this specific case I would suggest the following as possible justification for a large payout.
Firstly negligence has been claimed in that Airbus helicopters knew that the fuel tanks were not crashworthy, hence the standard issue fit to production-line models and 'should' have issued a SB mandating the fitting of a new tank.
Secondly, and I hope that this isn't the case, that the passenger as a medical evacuee was deemed to not have a ticket and be subject to the limitation of liability. If this has been raised then it will have dire consequences across the medical evacuation business segment.
The exception to the limitation of liability is if the carrier is negligent or does not issue the correct paperwork for the flight.
Without trawling through the legal judgement for this specific case I would suggest the following as possible justification for a large payout.
Firstly negligence has been claimed in that Airbus helicopters knew that the fuel tanks were not crashworthy, hence the standard issue fit to production-line models and 'should' have issued a SB mandating the fitting of a new tank.
Secondly, and I hope that this isn't the case, that the passenger as a medical evacuee was deemed to not have a ticket and be subject to the limitation of liability. If this has been raised then it will have dire consequences across the medical evacuation business segment.
It is my understanding the Warsaw act applies only to common carriage ops with an international travel component and does not apply to private carriage ops. Most US EMS helicopter ops are private carriage Part 135 ops and fall under US State or Federal jurisdiction depending where the original claimant is filed.
For all the faults of US medicine, this is rubbish
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: dallas
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after 45 years of medcine and surgery practice in usa
dont tell me this is rubbish
in the 70's we use to do the best we could to the patients
then the attorneys took over
now when we see a patient first thing in mind is not "what i can do to help this patient?" but
"what I need to do to protect myself against malpractice if i take care of this patient?"
that means that first you have to obtain hard data to prove what is not present ie expensive diagnostic tests to confirm and protect you as a doctor
then you try to determine what is that the patient needs.
we use to diagnose appendicitis with our hands and brains in the 70's
now it takes 2000 dollars to obtain a CT scan since missing the diagnosis will cost you perhaps 100 million dolllars
dont call this rubbish. its the price the attorneys ask that determines how we practice medicine in USA
dont tell me this is rubbish
in the 70's we use to do the best we could to the patients
then the attorneys took over
now when we see a patient first thing in mind is not "what i can do to help this patient?" but
"what I need to do to protect myself against malpractice if i take care of this patient?"
that means that first you have to obtain hard data to prove what is not present ie expensive diagnostic tests to confirm and protect you as a doctor
then you try to determine what is that the patient needs.
we use to diagnose appendicitis with our hands and brains in the 70's
now it takes 2000 dollars to obtain a CT scan since missing the diagnosis will cost you perhaps 100 million dolllars
dont call this rubbish. its the price the attorneys ask that determines how we practice medicine in USA
Interesting precedent.
The "latest" requirements for Crash Worthy Fuel Systems outlined in Part 27 - 952 have been in place since 1994 (23 years).
Air Methods knowingly operated a product which the manufacturer used a "grandfather" clause to avoid installing a CWFS.
The manufacturer, by means of offering a CWFS retrofit will certainly reduce it's liability for future accidents.
The operator on the other hand.....
And what about Part 27 - 561? It's been there since 1994 and was likely a contributor to the death of pilot Pat Mahany.
The "latest" requirements for Crash Worthy Fuel Systems outlined in Part 27 - 952 have been in place since 1994 (23 years).
Air Methods knowingly operated a product which the manufacturer used a "grandfather" clause to avoid installing a CWFS.
The manufacturer, by means of offering a CWFS retrofit will certainly reduce it's liability for future accidents.
The operator on the other hand.....
And what about Part 27 - 561? It's been there since 1994 and was likely a contributor to the death of pilot Pat Mahany.
Gentlemen, before you lock horns, please read the posts
The claim was that 25% of all PROCEDURES and STAYS were not due to medical need. I accept many investigations and components could be eliminated for no loss, but suggesting that 1 in 4 patients admitted to a US hospital has nothing wrong with them and that 25% of operations are not necessary is I repeat rubbish
Magyarflyer sorry you are so cynical. When I was at Parkland we introduced CT for appendicitis and I did an audit. We eliminated a number of operations so the overall cost fell. Ultrasound or CT is now standard around the world and reduces risk
Yes I agree there is a lot of waste due to defensive medicine, but please dont exaggerate or the lawyers will never be controlled!!
The claim was that 25% of all PROCEDURES and STAYS were not due to medical need. I accept many investigations and components could be eliminated for no loss, but suggesting that 1 in 4 patients admitted to a US hospital has nothing wrong with them and that 25% of operations are not necessary is I repeat rubbish
Magyarflyer sorry you are so cynical. When I was at Parkland we introduced CT for appendicitis and I did an audit. We eliminated a number of operations so the overall cost fell. Ultrasound or CT is now standard around the world and reduces risk
Yes I agree there is a lot of waste due to defensive medicine, but please dont exaggerate or the lawyers will never be controlled!!