Another lawsuit

[kallend 2,182]

Does the guy holding the controls count as part of the flight control system?

From Avweb:

Lawsuits Flying In Lidle Crash

The families of former New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor Tyler Stanger claim the crash of their Cirrus SR20 into a Manhattan apartment building was caused by a "catastrophic failure of the flight control system." A statement released by Todd Macaluso, the lawyer representing the families of Lidle and Stanger, claims that FAA and NTSB data show that Cirrus aircraft have "a history of aileron failures" and "there have been other accidents involving flight control failures, several of which resulted in deaths." The suit also names Teledyne, Hartzel Propeller, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice Aviation. The NTSB has not yet determined a cause for the Oct. 11 crash, but an update to its preliminary report released in early November focuses on the role of a 13-knot crosswind in the accident and makes no mention of control anomalies. Cirrus has declined comment on details of the crash investigation. New York television station NY1 says the cause of the crash w
ill determine whether Lidle's family gets a $1 million insurance payout from Major League Baseball. Meanwhile, the owner of an apartment 13 floors above the impact point is suing Lidle's family for $7 million, claiming the crash ruined his home. Dr. Lawrence Rosenthal claims the crash loosened bricks, broke windows and caused extensive smoke damage to his apartment, which is actually three suites joined together to form a single residence. Rosenthal's lawyer, David Jaroslawicz, told reporters last week that "everything was destroyed" in his client's apartment and he and his family had to move out. Lidle's plane hit the 30th floor of the apartment building on Manhattan's Upper East Side. The engine was ejected into an apartment, but most of the plane bounced off the building and fell to the street. Lidle and Stanger were sightseeing in a strip of VFR airspace called the East River Exclusion Area when the pilot (it hasn't been determined who was flying) tried to make a U-turn
at the northern boundary of the area.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Always someone trying to make a buck off of someone else's tragedy.

[jimmytavino 16]

I drive on ice covered roads alot...
when you try a high speed, 180 degree turn... you tend to skate..... and centrifugal force overcomes what little friction there is, between the road and the tires,,, and you slide OUT...
This quick little airplane did the same thing..... they tried a hard 180,,,,, and i beleive the wind was from the southeast,,, and It added to the situation by helping to Sllllllide them...... into the building.
That's all.... nasty bit of bad fortune,,,,, which could have been foreseen,,, if Not by the inexperienced Lidle,,,, at least by his instructor.....
How can you fault the aircraft......???
given a generous amount of room which would be required to accomplish that maneuver,, and it's no problem,,, a non issue.... But trying to do it , in that small channel formed by tall buildings, and AGAINT the prevailing winds,,, and ACCIDENTS can happen....
This country is waaaay too litigious.. what ever happened to acceptance of "bad luck" without looking for someone to sue,,,,,,, and for WHAT??? monetary gain does nothing to bring back the deceased, who are the REAL victims here....
jmy

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How can you fault the aircraft......???

It's easy! Just say, "It's the aircraft's fault." Don't you know that individual subjective belief is the foundation of objective reality? Most murderers, rapists, etc., are good people. Ask one of their monthers and she'll tell you what a good boy he is and how the system done him wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

The suit also names Teledyne, Hartzel Propeller, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice Aviation.

Do ya think they need anymore ammo for that shotgun?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 3]

Jimmy, from what incomplete evidence you and I know, you're probably right: it was probably pilot error, combined with winds, and bam! it caused the accident.

But you and I are not privy to the experts' examination and analysis of the aircraft and the other evidence. This is a product liability lawsuit. A product liability lawsuit cannot go forward, beyond the most preliminary stage, without expert witnesses issuing a detailed report demonstrating scientifically that the product was defective, and how the defects caused the accident. Before the case ever gets to trial, the plaintiffs must withstand what's known as a Daubert hearing, in which the judge has to determine whether the experts' science warrants letting the case go to trial. I can tell you, that many product liability cases, including some aircraft crash cases, are thrown out at this stage. I can also tell you that juries issue defense verdicts in many, many product liability lawsuits. (But those cases don't make the news, you see...) On the other hand, if it is not thrown out at this stage, it's because the judge has determined, after reviewing the plaintiff's experts' evidence, and often comparing it with the defense experts' evidence, that the plaintiffs' experts' science is sufficient to allow the case to go to trial.

In other words: at this stage, it's way premature for us, not being involved in the case, to judge from our armchairs whether the lawsuit is frivolous or meritorious. I know it's vogue and popular around here to rail against frivolous lawsuits (especially re: aviation), and cashing in on other people's misery, etc., but unless we consider the factors I've just discussed, we're judging an incomplete picture.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

The suit also names Teledyne, Hartzel Propeller, S-Tec, Honeywell and Justice Aviation.

Do ya think they need anymore ammo for that shotgun?

There are statutes of limitation within which a lawsuit must be brought, or the opportunity to do so is forever lost. If the plaintiffs' attorneys fail to sue a potentially responsible party, and then - after the statute of limitations expires - it turns out that that party had some responsibility, and the plaintiffs lose the case because of that, that would be legal malpractice.

[DZJ 0]

My first reaction to reading that summary was 'pre-flight check, anyone?'.

[billvon 3,132]

>FAA and NTSB data show that Cirrus aircraft have "a history of aileron failures"

That's true - the early SR20's had a problem with aileron edge interference during high-G turns. I believe the problem has since been corrected.

[kelpdiver 2]

I'm more interested in the claim of catastrophic damage 13 floors above impact. Seems a bit far fetched for a plane that weighs less than most cars.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

>FAA and NTSB data show that Cirrus aircraft have "a history of aileron failures"

That's true - the early SR20's had a problem with aileron edge interference during high-G turns. I believe the problem has since been corrected.

If an airworthiness directive was issued but not complied w/, the fault is with the owner of the aircraft, the mechanic that didn't fix it, and ultimately with the PIC who flew it.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[jimmytavino 16]

interesting...

you make valid points about the technicality of this issue...thanks for an insiders explantion...'

a mistake made, can sometimes be tragic, as in this case. I suppose it is normal to expect those who feel they were "wronged" to look for some avenue of compensation...

As for the apartment owner...... wouldn't homeowners ins.( if it was a condo) or else the Buildings' Liability Ins... cover such accidents...????

To go after the aircraft, it's manufacturer, and components suppliers, seems to be simply a search for 'deep pockets'.
no wonder the cost of general aviation aircraft is so high.....

j t

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

There are statutes of limitation within which a lawsuit must be brought, or the opportunity to do so is forever lost. If the plaintiffs' attorneys fail to sue a potentially responsible party, and then - after the statute of limitations expires - it turns out that that party had some responsibility, and the plaintiffs lose the case because of that, that would be legal malpractice

Doesn't make it any more pleasant for those named in the suit though eh?

It seems the system is broken.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

As for the apartment owner...... wouldn't homeowners ins.( if it was a condo) or else the Buildings' Liability Ins... cover such accidents...????

Presumably the apt owner's homeowners' insurance would cover him up to the limits of his policy. But then his ins. co. would just sue the liable party anyway to get reimbursed (called "subrogation"). Plus the apt owner says his damages are $7 million. I'd be surprised if his policy's coverage limits are that high (but who knows?)

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

There are statutes of limitation within which a lawsuit must be brought, or the opportunity to do so is forever lost. If the plaintiffs' attorneys fail to sue a potentially responsible party, and then - after the statute of limitations expires - it turns out that that party had some responsibility, and the plaintiffs lose the case because of that, that would be legal malpractice

Doesn't make it any more pleasant for those named in the suit though eh?

It seems the system is broken.

The system isn't broken, it's just open to abuse.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are statutes of limitation within which a lawsuit must be brought, or the opportunity to do so is forever lost. If the plaintiffs' attorneys fail to sue a potentially responsible party, and then - after the statute of limitations expires - it turns out that that party had some responsibility, and the plaintiffs lose the case because of that, that would be legal malpractice

Doesn't make it any more pleasant for those named in the suit though eh?

It seems the system is broken.

The system isn't broken, it's just open to abuse.

Andy's post suggests that the system demands abuse.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

>FAA and NTSB data show that Cirrus aircraft have "a history of aileron failures"

That's true - the early SR20's had a problem with aileron edge interference during high-G turns. I believe the problem has since been corrected.

Maybe so, and admittedly I don't know if there are any special airspace considerations in that particular area but it sounds like the pretty much busted this one.


Sec. 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate
an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the
surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,
or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
2,000 feet of the aircraft.

So I assume that the FAA will apply their catch all:

Sec. 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person
may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to
endanger the life or property of another.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are statutes of limitation within which a lawsuit must be brought, or the opportunity to do so is forever lost. If the plaintiffs' attorneys fail to sue a potentially responsible party, and then - after the statute of limitations expires - it turns out that that party had some responsibility, and the plaintiffs lose the case because of that, that would be legal malpractice

Doesn't make it any more pleasant for those named in the suit though eh?

It seems the system is broken.

The system isn't broken, it's just open to abuse.

Andy's post suggests that the system demands abuse.

That's a common misapprehension people have when I explain that to them.
It doesn't demand abuse so much as it demands meticulous diligence.
Virtually no defendant in any case feels he/it ought to have been sued; and virtually all defendants in every case feel a tinge (or more) of indignation at having been sued. Human nature, I guess.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Virtually no defendant in any case feels he/it ought to have been sued; and virtually all defendants in every case feel a tinge (or more) of indignation at having been sued. Human nature, I guess.

How many of those defendants should be getting sued? How many of them will turn out to have been in any way culpable?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Virtually no defendant in any case feels he/it ought to have been sued; and virtually all defendants in every case feel a tinge (or more) of indignation at having been sued. Human nature, I guess.

How many of those defendants should be getting sued? How many of them will turn out to have been in any way culpable?

I don't know; and I don't know.
Neither do you.

[ExAFO 0]

If D has a good attorney, I doubt this will get past summary judgment.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

I don't know; and I don't know.
Neither do you.

And neither do the attorneys. So when the system requires that those companies be named 'just in case' is that not a problem with the system?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

If D has a good attorney, I doubt this will get past summary judgment.

It will depend as much, if not more, on the skill of the plaintiffs' and defendants' respective expert witnesses.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

I don't know; and I don't know.
Neither do you.

And neither do the attorneys.

Of course they do.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Of course they do.

Excuse me?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?