Victims "accepted the risks of flying in a helicopter"
 

A brother of the pilot at the center of the Kobe Bryant crash says the NBA star accepted the risks of flying in a helicopter, so his family has no right to money from the pilot’s estate.

Berge Zobayan argues in an answer to Vanessa Bryant’s wrongful death lawsuit that pilot Ara Zobayan “bears no responsibility” for the high-speed helicopter crash that killed Bryant, 41, his 13-year-old daughter Gianna and six others on a morning of blinding fog last January.

“Any injuries or damages to plaintiffs and/or their decedent were directly caused in full or in part by the negligence or fault of plaintiffs and/or their decedent, including their knowing and voluntary encounter with the risks involved,” the new paperwork filed Friday states.

“This negligence was a substantial factor in causing their purported damages, for which this answering defendant bears no responsibility,” the filing argues.

The brother further argues that “any injuries or damages to plaintiffs and/or their decedent were directly caused in full or in part by the negligence, fault or wrongful conduct of third parties, whom this answering defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control.”

Vanessa Bryant filed her wrongful death claim in February, naming Zobayan and the helicopter company who owned the chopper, Island Express, as defendants.

The lawsuit alleged that Island Express was only certified to fly under visual flight rules, meaning with adequate visibility, and that foggy conditions the day of the tragedy should have grounded the chopper before it slammed into a hillside in Calabasas, Calif.

Island Express had not yet answered the complaint as of Monday morning, according to an online docket.

https://journaltimes.com/brother-of-...39a78b2cd.html

It’s not the first time nor probably the last when relatives of the deceased sue the pilot or remaining family.

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1G1-280256319/crash-helicopter-pilot-s-wife-is-sued-by-widow

The family of a man killed in a horrific helicopter crash are suing the widow of the pilot at the controls.

Charles Stisted, a close friend of Prince Charles, William and Harry, died when the craft smashed into a mountain in Northern Ireland on the way back from a hunting trip.

The 47-year-old father-of-two was killed alongside pilot Anthony Smith and the aircraft's co-owner, construction tycoon Ian Wooldridge. Today Mr Stisted's grieving wife Melissa revealed she is suing Mr Smith's widow, Angela, as well as Mr Wooldridge's family, for [pounds sterling]300,000. They believe the pilot was negligent.

In the Bryant case they will be suing the estate, not the widow.
You can't expect any layman to fully understand the risks nor to understand the consequences and risks of what they may ask a pilot to do.
That responsibility sits upfront and with the operator.
From what we do know, it would appear they have the basis for a case but I don't understand what they will actually achieve, it can't be money.
Whether justified or not, lawyers will take every opportunity to litigate. The costs alone for defending a suit can bankrupt a defendant, so taking chances just isn't worth the risk.

True, It’s not all about money. Sometimes it’s about justice and about finding your inner peace by being able to draw a final line under something.
No matter how you look at it, there won’t be any winners in this case but the lawyers. BOTH parties have lost their beloved ones and none of them deserves it to be blamed for what their partner did or said

The risk is proportional, though.

Passengers would feel more comfortable riding in a twin-engined, articulated head, IFR machine with an experienced pilot, than they would in an R22 with a 100-hour newbie. They would expect to get there and back in the big bird, whereas the R22 is more a thrillseeker ride to most people.

Accident investigations don't apportion blame in order to encourage safety and transparency.
For the public this can be unsatisfying as no one gets held responsible, something that wouldn't be acceptable to any surviving family irrespective the mode of transport or cause, and little changes to prevent the next occurrence.
It all gets left to the courts.
I would think that the objective here is to get some form of closure and an outcome to prevent this just being another senseless waste of life.
Change rarely does happen and will just get filed in the sh1t happens pile.

Or perhaps the 'avoidable sh1t keeps happening' pile:{

One wonders why such a capable aircraft was limited to VFR in an area so prone to fog.

The helicopter was IFR capable however the operator didn't want to go to the expense and effort of maintaining the IFR capability on their OP-SPEC. It was mentioned elsewhere here that there might only be six flights per year where the IFR capability would be operationally useful. The economics just don't stack up for maintaining the capability.

Well, if you don't have IFR op-specs. you should not be flying those six flights per year. But in order not to lose a VVIP customer they did it anyhow.

How expensive is an accident?

Well yeah. The sensible option is to stick to your OP-SPEC. If you want to do IFR there is a cost involved. Do it properly and put it in the OP-SPEC. If it's not in the OP-SPEC, don't do it. Never-the-less, once caught out for whatever reason, it should be straight forward for an IFR pilot, even one who is not current, to do an IIMC in that helicopter. It's easy, you have George to help. Push one button and apply climb power. The big mystery to me is why that didn't happen.

Absolutely - as the old saying goes 'If you think Flight Safety is expensive, try having an accident'.

The piece of the puzzle that connects arcane regulatory operating requirements with the real world of aviation operations is more often than not situated between the Captain's ears. The decision making that led to the accident ultimately came down to captaincy and airmanship, the lack of an operator's IFR certification only became a factor when he became airborne in those conditions.

i personally feel there is an accepted risk taken when you fly in a helicopter.
as well as ride a bike, walk the dog and blast into space on a rocket.

but thats because i have common sense.
unfortunately not everyone has it.

what you can never accept is negligence on the part of someone else that increases the standard risk.
if negligence applies, you need the court and the experts to rule on that.
the only way to do that is proceed with a lawsuit.
imagine the same scenario from both sides....pilot pushes weather and crashes. or the passenger pushing the pilot to fly in same weather...we really have no idea how this one went down....facts in court would be the only way.

I dont fault the victims of this accident, from either camp for pushing this into the courtroom.
It wont be a picnic for anyone, the only winners in the end are the lawyers.

Not everyone has a George equipped S76.