To sue or not to sue?

[Push 0]

Was there information available when the aircraft was designed that the material or design may not be suited for this application?

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Was the design defect inherent, was it not found when the aircraft was designed and certified airworthy? If it was not found then and the manufacturer did not know about it or cover it up, then they are not responsible. Now if there was foreknowledge of said defect or cause of defect (i.e shoddy material/ manufacturing ect...) and the aircraft was not recalled and refitted, if there was criminal negligence.
Then I would sue the manufacter. Only then.

Lets say that it is impossible to determine what the manufacturer of tha aircraft knew, but they did change the design of the tail on later models produced after your was built. These later models with the different tail design are not affected by the SB the manufacturer releases.

Derek

[Push 0]

In this case, even if I do sue I should not win. People are innocent until proven guilty, and so are companies.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Hooknswoop 19]

It is a very tricky situation. Did the manufacturer know about the design flaw and fixed it in later aircraft? Or were they simply improving what they felt was an acceptable design to an even better design? No way to know. And that makes all the difference.

Derek

[Push 0]

Hence my statement about being innocent until proven guilty. Unless you signed a waiver, you should be compensated for your suffering, but no punitive damages should be awarded.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[pilotdave 0]

What if in an investigation, they found that the company knew about the flaw, but felt the problem was not likely to ever actually occur?

edit: This is what I do on a daily basis. I have a database of "flaws," containing the severity and probability of occurance. Ok, it's not so much flaws as hazards, but still, some of them could be avoided with a design change. It makes me wonder very much if there is ever a crash caused by a known hazard, and they see that I wrote in a report that it is very unlikely to ever occur during the lifetime of the fleet, what will happen? In my case probably nothing because I work on a military aircraft. But what i worked on a civilian aircraft? Thats why we are careful to justify everything we do as best as possible.

Dave

[PLFKING 4]

Quote

seems like he wasn't claiming that he didn't know it was dangerous.

he was claiming that the flaw in the canopy made by the party in question increased that risk out of the normal level.

You're right.....and there was going to be more to my reply, but I realize I wouldn't be able to explain my reaction to this, and the countless other frivolous lawsuits this mitigation-happy society instigates.....burglars suing because they get hurt while robbing someone, killing someone then claiming to be "a victim", etc. Just once, I'd like to see a judge somewhere stand up and say "Not only am I going to dismiss this case, but I'm also going to sentence you to one year in prison for wasting this court's time." Fat chance of that, though.


Don

"When in doubt I whip it out,
I got me a rock-and-roll band.
It's a free-for-all."

[Deuce 1]

Yes. For actual damages. Not pain and suffering.

What did it actually cost to fix you do to my negligence?

No pain and suffering.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Hence my statement about being innocent until proven guilty.

I agree, but how can you prove that a manufacturer knew that the design of the tail was flawed?

Derek

[Push 0]

Complicated. It would require knowing the thoroughness of the investigation conducted by the company into the matter. If someone in there just shrugged and said "Don't worry about it", then I would sue. If they investigated the flaw enough to believe it shouldn't have been labelled a flaw in the first place, then I should not sue. Anything in between is a gray area and I can't give an answer on a messageboard.

Of course, the investigation itself would probably occur during the trial, so I've sued already. We're really talking about whether the lawsuit should be successful or not.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Bottom Line in reality......................Since the plane crash all you can do is paint a not so pretty picture with your teeth..........But the only thing you CAN do, is to sue, and hopefully retain enough money to get yourself into a nicer, upscale nursing home and maybe give some money to your family so they may live better

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[Push 0]

Perhaps witnesses. Maybe you could find some information about the flaw that was available at the time and the company did not check. Some old documents could do the trick. Other expert opinion could work.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Perhaps witnesses.

Say no one that works for tha manufacturer will cut their own throats and testify that the design of the tail was flawed....

Quote

Maybe you could find some information about the flaw that was available at the time and the company did not check.

I dunno, where would you look?

Quote

Some old documents could do the trick.

If I owned the company, I would not let you go through my files and I would burn anything with the words 'design flaw' and 'tail' on them.

Quote

Other expert opinion could work.

Only to establish that the design was flawed, not if the manufacturer knew about the flaw prior to your crash.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I agree, but how can you prove that a manufacturer knew that the design of the tail was flawed?

Assuming it's a reputable, honest company, that would not be hard.

I got some training from our company's chief attorney about this sort of thing. If we so much as think we MIGHT get sued, deleting related files or destroying records is a crime.

During the investigation, a company will be hired that basically uses special software to very quickly search through our files. They'll pull up every email that might possibly be related. There's no realistic way to hide that sort of information.

On the other hand, if it's just in the engineer's head that he thinks there might be a flaw, well, where's he work, NASA?

Dave

[Push 0]

Quote

I dunno, where would you look?

I don't know, you tell me, where does one look for information about aircraft design?

Quote

Only to establish that the design was flawed, not if the manufacturer knew about the flaw prior to your crash.

If there are enough experts that could have said that the design was flawed at the time, then we are talking about criminal negligence. The company is still at fault in this case and should be punished. I know we're all taking risks, but building airplanes (or parachutes) is a serious business and should be taken seriously.

I agree with you on the rest. Perhaps the investigation should have been made criminal and the documents seized before the company knew about it? It's difficult to prove either way, but that's how your judicial system works, no? If I was the prosecutor, I would go the expert opinion route.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

During the investigation, a company will be hired that basically uses special software to very quickly search through our files. They'll pull up every email that might possibly be related. There's no realistic way to hide that sort of information.

Can an individual, as part of the decision making process on weather or not to sue, legally hire a company to go through the manufacturers documents, computers, e-mails, etc to determine if the manufacturer knew about the design flaw prior to the crash? Does the manufacturer have to let them go through their files and such? How much would that cost?

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If there are enough experts that could have said that the design was flawed at the time, then we are talking about criminal negligence. The company is still at fault in this case and should be punished. I know we're all taking risks, but building airplanes (or parachutes) is a serious business and should be taken seriously.

I agree with you on the rest. Perhaps the investigation should have been made criminal and the documents seized before the company knew about it? It's difficult to prove either way, but that's how your judicial system works, no? If I was the prosecutor, I would go the expert opinion route.

The accident investigation determined the design was flawed and the manufacturer issued a SB to fix the problem.

The problem is determining if the company knew about the flaw prior to the crash.

I would think this would make a difference in deciding to sue or not. If the company didn't know about the flaw and the aircraft was certified, I think suing would be difficult to justify. If the manufacturer knew about the flaw prior to the crash, I would sue the hell out of them. I don't know how I would find out if they knew or not though.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is yes. Every time one of our aircraft crashes, no matter who's fault the crash is, we get sued for over $1 mil. At any given time I'm sure there are multiple lawsuits going on (they can take years to finish).

We learned in the training about a few specific crashes. One ended in something like a $30 million settlement because of a single memo that was found (written by the accident investigators about possible causes of the crash).

I don't know what it takes to hire one of those companies, but it can be done. And we also learned that marking documents with "company private" or similar stamps is probably a bad idea, because thats the first place they'll look.

edit: misread the question. I'm certain you'd have to sue first in order to investigate. You could always drop your suit depending on what gets found. Most people are after whatever settlement they can get though, i'm sure.

Dave

[Hooknswoop 19]

If there is no documentation to prove they knew or the documentation isn’t found, they my still have known. Or it may not be found because they didn’t know about the flaw.

Derek

[Lee03 0]

I'll go with those that say that there are too many varitables, and not enough info. First, if there was a design defect, the aircraft would stand very little chance of getting past the certification process the FAA demands. If after certification, any problems would be quickly addressed by the FAA through the issuance of Airworthy Directives (ADs). It is up to the owner and the pilot of the plane to see that the ADs are complied with. Some ADs are one time fixes, some are reoccuring. Aircraft are required to go through various inspections, i.e. 100 hour, annual, etc. If they are not inspected, who's fault is it if there is a problem? Again falls back on the owner and pilot. Unless it could be proven that there was gross negliance on the part of the manfacturer, I would not sue. That is exactly why aviation cost so much now days, because someones didn't comply with safety issues, and ADs, but because we live in a sue happy nation full of thieves and vultures know as tort lawyers, ambulances chasers, looking for any excuse to make a case to sue, and greedy individuals trying to get rich without earning it, the cost continues to spiral upward. Don't think it effects you, because your not a pilot.. guess again, insurance on jump planes, and other types of planes continues to climb and much of this reason is because of the fear of lawsuits! Due to this, General Aviation was closed down in the mid-80s to early 90s, Piper, Cessna, Beechcraft and other manfacturers did not produce aircraft, due to fear of being sued! GA was revived in the early 90s, but soon the theives and vultures were again bring about lawsuits, from as much as 20 years past, and as a result, a plane that should cost only around the cost of a SUV now costs $178,000. As a result of this, the same thing is happeneing as happened in the mid 80s. General Aviation is again suffering. If the theives and vultures have theri way, General Aviation will cease to exist!

--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.

--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule

[pilotdave 0]

True. If prior knowledge is so important to you, no amount of investigation may help you decide if they are at fault.

But in my opinion, prior knowledge is not necessarily a prerequisite to sue. I believe that in such a serious case, they SHOULD have known, whether or not they did.

If it's not as serious, for example something that caused an engine failure, I might think differently.

Dave

[AndyMan 7]

Yes, I would sue. Without a second thought.

It's up to the judge and jury to decide if I have a case.

Most importantly, I have no sympathy for someone who doesn't even defend themselves.

If you don't want to pay for a lawyer, then don't. Represent yourself and explain that users accept the risks. But to not even show up in court and complain when you lose is pure cowardice.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'll go with those that say that there are too many varitables, and not enough info.

I'll try to narrow it down w/ more info.

Quote

First, if there was a design defect, the aircraft would stand very little chance of getting past the certification process the FAA demands.

There was a design flaw, and it did get certified with the flaw.

Quote

If after certification, any problems would be quickly addressed by the FAA through the issuance of Airworthy Directives (ADs). It is up to the owner and the pilot of the plane to see that the ADs are complied with. Some ADs are one time fixes, some are reoccuring.

The SB was issued after your crash. There were no other SB's/AD's for the aircraft.

Quote

Aircraft are required to go through various inspections, i.e. 100 hour, annual, etc. If they are not inspected, who's fault is it if there is a problem? Again falls back on the owner and pilot.

All inspections were current and up to date.

Quote

Unless it could be proven that there was gross negliance on the part of the manfacturer, I would not sue.

The design flaw resulted in the crash. You have no way to determine if they knew about the flaw prior to your crash.

Quote

That is exactly why aviation cost so much now days, because someones didn't comply with safety issues, and ADs, but because we live in a sue happy nation full of thieves and vultures know as tort lawyers, ambulances chasers, looking for any excuse to make a case to sue, and greedy individuals trying to get rich without earning it, the cost continues to spiral upward.

The aircraft was being operated within the operating limits. There were no contributing factors to the crash.

Quote

Don't think it effects you, because your not a pilot.. guess again, insurance on jump planes, and other types of planes continues to climb and much of this reason is because of the fear of lawsuits! Due to this, General Aviation was closed down in the mid-80s to early 90s, Piper, Cessna, Beechcraft and other manfacturers did not produce aircraft, due to fear of being sued! GA was revived in the early 90s, but soon the theives and vultures were again bring about lawsuits, from as much as 20 years past, and as a result, a plane that should cost only around the cost of a SUV now costs $178,000. As a result of this, the same thing is happeneing as happened in the mid 80s. General Aviation is again suffering. If the theives and vultures have theri way, General Aviation will cease to exist!

I agree that sueing bevcause you crashed your airplane because you were drunk, etc shouldn't be allowed to happen. But that is not the case in my scenario. BTW- I am a pilot and I do see that some people that sued when they shouldn't have has driven costs sky high.

Derek

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

Quote

then why is everyone so upset over someone suing a parachute manufacturer over a design flaw?

Personally? It pisses me off because there's no way he can claim he didn't know it's dangerous....sorta like someone smoking all their lives, then their survivors sue the tobacco companies for billions. Surely he realized there was a reason for initialing those waivers 20-30 times at each new DZ he visited.


Don

We all know that driving a car is dangerous,... yet people & companies are sued everyday.

Angela.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

to not even show up in court and complain when you lose is pure cowardice.

I didn't detect any complaining on the defendant's side when I read the article. It's the plaintiff's lawyers remarking about the award.

A man at peace with an imperfect justice system, perhaps? I agree with his assessment ... locking horns in the current judicial climate in the US would be throwing money and time away. It's a faster path back to the world of parachute manufacture to accept fate than to fight it. Hopefully the company was incorporated in such a way that the owner and staff are protected from liability...I believe LLC's can do this in some cases.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?