virgin747
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 1999 12:20 am

Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:25 am

An article in Kansas states.....

Quote:

Family of pilot sues Cessna over crash
BY MOLLY MCMILLIN
The Wichita Eagle
The family of the pilot killed in a crash of a Cessna Caravan airplane has filed suit against Cessna Aircraft Co. alleging fraud, product liability, negligence and breach of warranty.

The family is seeking $25 million in punitive damages for the loss of their mother, Nancy Chase Allen, an air cargo pilot for a FedEx feeder airline.

Cessna's policy is not to comment on any litigation, spokesman Doug Oliver said.

The Canadian Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash on Oct. 6, 2005, near a major intersection in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

The board has cited in-flight airframe icing as a factor in the crash, according to the Nolan Law Group, a Chicago law firm representing the family.

Cessna is marketing the Caravan as a safe and secure plane for winter operations, the law firm said in a statement. But lives are being lost.



continued here....
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/bus...source=rss&channel=kansas_business


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Capina



Another article states according to figures 33 people have died in the last 15 years in caravan accidents due to icing....

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?c...03b8e3-a4ae-49cd-b418-0ad625ad5a82
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:29 am

Cessna will probably have to pay a couple million dollars to make this go away, which will just bump up the cost of their airplanes and pilots' insurance policies that much more. How sad that a person could die doing the thing she probably loved best and then have her family take an action like this that will only increase the cost of that activity for everyone else. It would be nice if they would think about what she would have wanted, not how they can become rich off this tragedy.
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
Slcpilot
Posts: 568
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:41 am

The C-208 is generally known for it's abilty to pick up large amounts of ice, and the speed/performance loss that goes with it. A couple of years ago one was lost out of SLC on it's way to ID with the loss of both on board. Icing was suspected. Most pilots are aware of this charactoristic, and are trained with respect to it.

I would hope this was not a case of icing if it was just after T/O. If so, there might be other issues (i.e. the pilot's pre-flight and de-icing efforts prior to flight).

It would be interesting to hear the plantiff's arguement in it's entirety.

Fly Safe,

SLCPilot
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
 
71Zulu
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:42 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:45 am

Agreed. They didn't define "shortly" after take-off but that generally does not fit with airframe icing, but rather a take-off with a contaminated wing.
Clickable links only please!
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:51 am

Cessna was in a lawsuit over a similar situation about a KS Caravan crashed with 10 aboard due to icing shortly after take off in 2001. Cessna won the lawsuit because it was found that the pilot did not properly inspect the wings for icing in his pre-flight. The carrier settled out of court on the issue. I lost a very close friend in that crash.
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...te=10102001®=N9530F&airline=Penair
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:22 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
Cessna won the lawsuit because it was found that the pilot did not properly inspect the wings for icing in his pre-flight.

As many times is found, the pilot gets in a rush or gets lazy and screwed up. Its not the first time and it won't be the last.

/Start of Rant/
The airlines and manufacturer should be sueing the pilots family when this happens. (no i don't think they really should because its as absurd as the family sueing Cessna.)

Its the airlines job to make sure the aircraft is airworthy. Its not cessna's job to keep track of every aircraft they have ever manufacturered. Once its delivered its the owners problem. If they don't keep up to date and bring it in for maintence and repairs its the same if your axle falls off because you never brought your car in for a bad joint. I don't know of any recalls on C-208 (the only time the manufacturer is at fault).

The family needs to get real and stop being greedy. Sueing for money that can't make you happy with never bring back your family member. AHHH!!!

/End of rant/
KPAE via KBVY
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9930
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:42 am

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 3):
Agreed. They didn't define "shortly" after take-off but that generally does not fit with airframe icing, but rather a take-off with a contaminated wing.

Or it may have collected a lot of ice shortly after takeoff.

An aircraft that is certified for flight into icing conditions, is not certified for flight into severe icing conditions.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:16 am

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 2):
The C-208 is generally known for it's abilty to pick up large amounts of ice, and the speed/performance loss that goes with it.

Well I agree, 208's have a pretty bad reputation for ice up here. An Otter is a much better Ice aircraft.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:33 am

What is it about the Caravan that makes it so prone to icing, the wing cannot be that specific can it? Why can't Cessna come up with a desing implentation of future build aircraft?
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:52 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):

There is nothing specific to the design that makes the Caravan more susceptible to icing. If I had to guess, I'd say its use as a freight hauler, typically flown single-pilot by pilots who have no union or other job protection and feel the most pressure to complete missions because they know they will be replaced if they say no, puts it in a relatively higher-risk category. But the Caravan meets the legal requirements for known-ice certification, which includes the fact that you must have a clean airframe before you take off and you must avoid severe icing conditions and get out of them immediately if they are inadvertently encountered.

The information in the article doesn't provide enough information to determine whether the pilot felt pressure to complete the mission despite her better judgment, whether she was under time pressure that caused her to neglect to clean the wings, tail, prop, etc. before takeoff, whether she wanted a different heading or altitude but was intimidated by ATC, or whether she was simply overconfident and continued flight into conditions into which she should not have continued. In any case, though, the crash was not the manufacturer's fault, and it was certainly not the fault of the Cessna customers and pilots who will bear the higher costs caused by her family's choice to sue.
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:05 pm

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 9):
But the Caravan meets the legal requirements for known-ice certification

Agreed, but will you also agree that different designs can preform better then others and still meet certification.


One factor that I think is the fact that most modern airfoils are thinner then then older designs.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:13 pm

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
Cessna will probably have to pay a couple million dollars to make this go away, which will just bump up the cost of their airplanes and pilots' insurance policies that much more.

A couple million will increase the cost of aircraft in a miniscule way given Cessna's scale. Further, increasing the price of insurance is not the fault of those who have filed the suit, rather insurance companies.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
How sad that a person could die doing the thing she probably loved best and then have her family take an action like this that will only increase the cost of that activity for everyone else.

Oh please. How dare you say what this family should or shouldn't do. Unfortunately, the only remedy for this is money, given that we can't send coroprations to jail.

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 5):
Its not cessna's job to keep track of every aircraft they have ever manufacturered.

Actually, yes it is. Ever heard of strict liability?

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 5):
I don't know of any recalls on C-208 (the only time the manufacturer is at fault).

That is not the only time the manufacturer is at fault. If they build an aircraft with faults, it is their issue, recall or not.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:43 pm

As much as I'm normally against these kind of lawsuits, some research does show many issues with the C208 and icing:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/fact_s...0187/recs_a05c0187_a0603_a0604.asp

...and many other reports and FAA documents if you google it.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
SlimChance
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:13 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:10 pm

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
It would be nice if they would think about what she would have wanted

After reading this thread, I told my mother that if I am ever seriously injured or killed in a motorcycle accident, I wouldn't want her to try to go after the manufacturer like that.
Perhaps we should tell loved ones know about the passion that drives our love of flying/riding/whatever. Instead of hoping that our families would think about what we want, let them know what we want.
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:39 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
Agreed, but will you also agree that different designs can preform better then others and still meet certification.

Of course. But it would be nice to have a law stating that aircraft (and any other items) that meet the legal standards of certification are presumed to be safe in certified circumstances absent concrete evidence that such certification was obtained fraudulently.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
A couple million will increase the cost of aircraft in a miniscule way given Cessna's scale.

Cessna stopped building general aviation airplanes for ten years because of that "miniscule" cost. They only started again because the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1996 was passed, creating a 17-year "liability tail" that cut off the liability of manufacturers after that time outside of certain circumstances. Today, we have Cessna 172s starting at $150k and up for an update of a 50-year-old design that includes fewer raw materials than the average economy car. Fully half of the cost of a new general aviation airplane is the liability cost.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Oh please. How dare you say what this family should or shouldn't do.

I say it as a pilot, and as the son of a pilot, and as the family and friend of many pilots. If, God forbid, something should happen to my father on his next flight the day after tomorrow, I know for a fact that suing the manufacturer of his airplane would cause no increase in aviation safety and would do nothing more than embarass his memory. I don't know any pilot who would favor a huge tort action to bring riches to their family at the expense of the vocation they had loved for their entire lives.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Unfortunately, the only remedy for this is money, given that we can't send coroprations to jail.

Yeah, too bad we can't just assassinate people who design, build, and market anything as complicated as an airplane that could in any way cause harm to any person, animal, or plant anywhere on the planet.  sarcastic  In all honesty, your attitude disturbs me.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Ever heard of strict liability?

Yes, and it's a crap legal concept when applied to products whose design and manufacture are already strictly regulated. When you tell a company how they have to build a product, it's utterly absurd to then pursue them for damages after having made a product that met or exceeded those standards. It's unfortunate that our current legal system permits such abuses, but I would love to see some legislation that completely eliminates the concept of strict liability in tort law, at least insofar as it applies to products that already have statutory requirements that define the fiduciary duty that the manufacturer is not permitted to breach before said manufacturer may even sell the product.
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
virgin747
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 1999 12:20 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:48 pm

Where the crash site is, its in downtown winnipeg, a 10 minute drive to the airport... And where she radioed is near my house... I had friends scraping off frozen drizzle of their cars at about the time she crashed... Apparently rumors were she was under pressure as previous flights were cancelled... theres threads about this crash already from a year ago... hopefully the links are still alive since they have recordings from liveatc.net i'll do a look up and let ya all know.
 
virgin747
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 1999 12:20 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:57 pm

http://media.putfile.com/fedex-caravancrash

I had to upload a copy... go to 10 minute mark
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:11 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
What is it about the Caravan that makes it so prone to icing, the wing cannot be that specific can it? Why can't Cessna come up with a desing implentation of future build aircraft?

The Caravan has a lot of surface on which to collect ice, and not it protected. Also, the aircraft will lose speed rapidly, which will diminish the effectiveness of the boots. The aircraft is also not blessed with an over abundance of power, especially with the inertial seperator extended, which would be the case in icing conditions. Looking at all of the vortex generators on the tail, I have to wonder how sensitive the airflow is there and how prone to seperation it is. The point is, it may have met the standard for icing protection, but just barely. Other aircraft will exceed the minimums by a greater margin.

I think the only reason the family is going after Cessna is because they have the deepest pockets and they cannot sue the FAA or CAA. If Cessna constructed, certified, and supported the aircraft in accordance with the relavant regulations, I don't think they should bear any liability. If they followed the rules, they should not be held responsible for the actions of the operator. Where are all the people who were screaming "PIC Responsibility" at the Comair crash?
Proud OOTSK member
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:18 pm

Well, it's a different case.

Do a Google search on Cessna 208 icing, and you'll find many references to a large number of icing accidents. There are even NTSB and FAA reports on the problems and their recommendations.

This isn't a 'normal' icing issue...it's obvious that the Caravan has some inherent icing problems...

Now, can these icing problems be avoided by pilot training etc. Yes, they can. Did this pilot have Ce208 specific icing training?

As always, we need to understand what happened here before making assumptions about who is at fault.

I don't know the full story, so I'm not passing judgment.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:23 pm

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
essna will probably have to pay a couple million dollars to make this go away, which will just bump up the cost of their airplanes and pilots' insurance policies that much more.

I though the government passed a law in 1994(?) that limited the liabilities of the GA companies, since they were often wrongfully blamed and thus sued in crashes.

By the way, did any of you guys know that approximately $30,000USD of a brand new Cessna 172 goes towards paying off legal fees, lawsuits, etc...
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:53 pm

Quoting N231YE (Reply 19):
I though the government passed a law in 1994(?) that limited the liabilities of the GA companies, since they were often wrongfully blamed and thus sued in crashes.

It's a 17-year liability tail, which means that the law only protects manufacturers after the airplane is 17 years old. Caravans were first certified in 1984 or 1985, I think, so it's possible but not very likely that this airplane was old enough to be protected.

The law isn't a panacea, though - you can still sue and try to show that the 17-year limit doesn't apply. For example, if Cessna issued a service bulletin ten years ago mandating a change to the deicing boots, the case would probably be allowed on the grounds that the clock on liability for the icing systems was reset when that change was ordered ten years ago. More needs to be done to bring down the brutal cost of civil liability in general aviation.
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:51 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 19):
By the way, did any of you guys know that approximately $30,000USD of a brand new Cessna 172 goes towards paying off legal fees, lawsuits, etc...

Who lied and told you that?

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 14):
Yeah, too bad we can't just assassinate people who design, build, and market anything as complicated as an airplane that could in any way cause harm to any person, animal, or plant anywhere on the planet. In all honesty, your attitude disturbs me.

The point I was making is that we don't do that and shouldn't do that. In France, there was a chance that the Concorde designers would be thrown into jail over the AF crash. The point is, that we in the United States choose private market based action over intense regulation to deal with these kinds of issues, and it has worked very well.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 14):
Fully half of the cost of a new general aviation airplane is the liability cost.

Did Cessna tell you that?

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 14):
I don't know any pilot who would favor a huge tort action to bring riches to their family at the expense of the vocation they had loved for their entire lives.

It isn't at the expense of their vocation or even their recreation. What they do becomes safer when irresponsibility is punished. Take a look at the amazing development in GA, airplanes like the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22, immeasurably safer than aircraft in the past.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:15 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
It isn't at the expense of their vocation

But it is. What is the single biggest barrier to entry into aviation? Money. Not only for the aspiring pilot, but also for students that the new flight instructor can teach. This in turn limits the number of flight schools that can stay in business and reduces the availability of training. It make insurance more expensive not only for the manufacturer, but for the flight school and for the flight instructor as well. There are a number of schools that have ceased teaching based on liability insurance cost alone. It used to be quite easy to find multi-engine or tailwheel instruction. Now those are become niche markets. This reduces the number of clients not only for Cessna and other manufacturers, but related companies such as Telex, Bendix, David Clark, Jeppesen, and various FBOs. Lawsuits such as these drive up cost for everyone. Too bad we will probably never see meaningful tort reform in this country.
Proud OOTSK member
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:22 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 22):
What is the single biggest barrier to entry into aviation? Money.

Yeah, money. Money because oil prices are high and because people are willing to pay a high rate for flight training, not because people get sued when they screw up

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 22):
Lawsuits such as these drive up cost for everyone.

No they don't. Lawsuits lower costs for everyone by making things safer.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 22):
There are a number of schools that have ceased teaching based on liability insurance cost alone.

Then you blame the insurance market, not lawsuits. When someone is liable, they have to pay for said liability, if insurance companies are charging idiotic amounts, then blame them and their record profits.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:38 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
An aircraft that is certified for flight into icing conditions, is not certified for flight into severe icing conditions.

A dumb question: Are there aircraft which are certified for flight into severe icing conditions ? I guess in the event of a war, military aircraft might have to do it.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:39 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Who lied and told you that?



Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Did Cessna tell you that?

I've seen figures putting the cost of manufacturer's liability insurance at anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000 per aircraft for new certified single-engine piston airplanes. Considering the selling price of such airplanes ranges from well over $100,000 for entry-level VFR-equipped 2-seat trainers to over $500,000 for a loaded Mooney or Bonanza, that cost may not be half the price in all cases, but it's certainly very significant.

Furthermore, it's not just the manufacturer's insurance. Anyone who sells parts to the manufacturer or as replacements/upgrades has to have their own insurance; not only is Cessna paying tens of thousands of dollars because of liability lawsuits, but anyone who sells them an engine, propeller, attitude indicator, or even seat fabric has to pass their insurance cost on, which also gets added to the final sale price.

Anyone who's taken basic economics understands that as the price of a good increases, fewer of that good are demanded. It's also true that the unit cost to build an item increases as the number of items built decreases. So the large increase to the sale price of an airplane caused by liability insurance reduces the number of people who can or will spend the money to buy the airplane, which lessens efficiency and raises unit prices, which makes the airplane even more expensive to make and to buy.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
The point is, that we in the United States choose private market based action over intense regulation to deal with these kinds of issues, and it has worked very well.

We have both - aircraft manufacturing is very intensely regulated. We don't throw people in jail for simple negligence because in the U.S. and other countries whose legal system is based in English common law, there is a bright line between criminal law (which is when the state acts on the people's behalf to penalize a person for having broken a law and thus injured society) and civil law (which is when the state acts as an arbiter of fact and law in a dispute between private parties). The state can only punish a losing defendant in a criminal case, because the state is not considered a party in a civil case. I understand in countries such as France with a civil law (as opposed to common law) system, that distinction may not be so clear.

But a private, market-based action would be a person seeing that an airplane had unfavorable accident statistics and choosing to buy a different model. Strict liability lawsuits use the government (the court is neither "private" nor "market-based") to act as an insurance adjuster, redistributing private funds both as a means to make the damaged person "whole" even when the cause of the person's damage is not in fact the owner of those funds - as though millions of dollars can bring back a grieving family's dead relative.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
It isn't at the expense of their vocation or even their recreation.

False. Note all the costs I mentioned above? There are more. Once the airplane has gone out the door, its new owner needs his own liability insurance. If he wants to rent the airplane, or use it for flight training, he has to insure those activities at an increasingly high cost. He needs yet more insurance if he actually wants to be the one to instruct students in his airplane, or to fly it for any commercial purpose. His student should have renter's insurance because all of the above policies only cover the airplane and its owner - not the person flying.

So when the student goes to take a one-hour lesson, the price of the airplane per hour includes the amortized purchase price of the airplane, which is higher because fewer could be built and sold and also includes liability insurance costs from the manufacturer and from any part vendor. It includes an averaged hourly maintenance cost, which has to cover more part vendor liability, as well as the liability policy of the mechanic. Any money set aside for an engine/prop rebuild will include costs for that shop's liability costs. Some of the hourly costs will be the insurance on the airplane itself; some more will be the FBO's policy, and the student will be paying extra out of his own pocket for renter's insurance. The instructor's hourly fee will have to include his own commercial policy. Adding all these costs up is going to drastically raise the price of that one-hour lesson.

The more expensive flying is, the fewer who can or want to pay for it. As I mentioned, that increases the unit costs for those who can afford it, and reduces the political impact pilots can have to fight government restrictions on aviation. Fewer airplanes, fewer pilots, more danger from government controls, and less money to make real advances in aviation means that these junk lawsuits are absolutely at the expense of pilots' vocation or sport.
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:51 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
No they don't. Lawsuits lower costs for everyone by making things safer.

Lawsuits have absolutely nothing to do with safety....or lowering costs ??

Please be kind enough to give us some examples, and then I'll explain how lawsuits killed the GA industry in the USA, and how there are now very safe aircraft (even with no lawsuits!), and how the insurance is calculated into the final price of an aircraft...just because of lawsuits, no other reason.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Then you blame the insurance market, not lawsuits. When someone is liable, they have to pay for said liability, if insurance companies are charging idiotic amounts, then blame them and their record profits.

I'm not sure where you're getting your logic or your business knowledge from, but it's far from correct.

The insurance market charges 'idiotic amounts' because of ridiculous lawsuits that they may have to pay on. That's what the insurance if for...the 25 million dollars they may have to pay up when a relative sues. 25 million takes a lot of large premiums to make up.


Jimbo

[Edited 2006-10-10 21:55:13]
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:54 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
No they don't. Lawsuits lower costs for everyone by making things safer.

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 

Okay, you have to be a litigator even to say something like that. Half the trial lawyers I know don't even buy that nonsensical party line. Do you honestly mean to claim that manufacturers make safer aircraft by spending millions of dollars on liability insurance instead of on the airplanes? Or that if a private pilot who could afford to fly 15 hours a month without liability costs can only afford to fly 10 hours a month because of those increased costs, he's a safer pilot for getting a third less practice? Come on, now.

At absolute best, you could say that lawsuits redistribute costs in a way that their proponents consider more equitable. They certainly can't lower those costs, and adding lawyers' salaries and fees, the costs of the legal system itself, and insurance company profits increases the costs even assuming the system was perfectly efficient and "fair". In the real world, you pay vastly more to fly, and get nothing for that benefit unless you happen to be in the business of insuring, litigating, or judging.
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:57 am

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 25):
I've seen figures putting the cost of manufacturer's liability insurance at anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000 per aircraft for new certified single-engine piston airplanes. Considering the selling price of such airplanes ranges from well over $100,000 for entry-level VFR-equipped 2-seat trainers to over $500,000 for a loaded Mooney or Bonanza, that cost may not be half the price in all cases, but it's certainly very significant.

You've "seen figures". Where? How were these determined?

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 25):
Anyone who's taken basic economics understands that as the price of a good increases, fewer of that good are demanded.

Unless demand is already outstripping supply, and I don't see a problem with the order books at Cirrus

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 25):
We have both - aircraft manufacturing is very intensely regulated. We don't throw people in jail for simple negligence because in the U.S. and other countries whose legal system is based in English common law, there is a bright line between criminal law (which is when the state acts on the people's behalf to penalize a person for having broken a law and thus injured society) and civil law (which is when the state acts as an arbiter of fact and law in a dispute between private parties).

Don't even try to explain the law to me, given that I have a common law education and practice in a civil law jurisdiction within an overall common law system.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 25):
I understand in countries such as France with a civil law (as opposed to common law) system, that distinction may not be so clear.

Again, you obviously know nothing about me and definately know nothing about the civil or the common law.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 25):
Once the airplane has gone out the door, its new owner needs his own liability insurance

Which a car owner has to have as well, per government mandate. It is in the best interests of the public to have liability insurance because it

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 25):
and less money to make real advances in aviation means that these junk lawsuits are absolutely at the expense of pilots' vocation or sport.

Tell that to the family that has lost someone. They have no way of getting this lady back, and you want to take away their access to punishment of the culpable party as well. Ok, here is what I propose that goes along with what you are writing. You give lost wages and legal expenses to the family, then you pull Cessna's certificate and don't certificate a single Cessna built aircraft ever again. Now what sounds reasonable?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:02 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Don't even try to explain the law to me, given that I have a common law education and practice in a civil law jurisdiction within an overall common law system.

I don't think we're doubting your lack of law knowledge....it's knowledge of everything else that seems lacking.

Law actually has little to do with this topic....it's whether huge (and often frivolous) lawsuits should continually be filed, even when the company is not to blame. There have a few examples where Cessna has paid millions out to settle a case, even when it was proved they were not at fault....just because it was the fastest/easiest way out.

I have over 20 years in the aviation industry and do not agree with your comments.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
robsawatsky
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:03 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Then you blame the insurance market, not lawsuits. When someone is liable, they have to pay for said liability, if insurance companies are charging idiotic amounts, then blame them and their record profits.

So you don't see the connection between payouts by insurance companies on behalf of their sued clients and insurance rates? Anyway, I can see an underlying assumption in your arguments that corporations are always guilty of deliberately and knowingly building dangerous products and are inherently evil.

Sure things get safer over time. But this is due to constantly evolving technology and knowledge not malicious intent. In any case, safer does not necessarily = cheaper overall. Safety is a relative concept that is a trade-off between cost, benefit, convenience and personal risk aversion. Absolute safety is unachievable. Which is why regulations should protect both consumer and producer from unreasonable costs/prices and lawsuits.
 
starrion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:25 am

Well, Cessna's certainly got safer after 86. They stopped building them. A aircraft not built because of liability costs is certainly safe. It also can't be flown.

It wasn't until the Tort reform was passed that they started building them again. The problem is that juries don't understand when there is a real issue or not. They see a family in court vs. the corporation that built the plane, and too many of them can be turned based on emotional arguements rather than factual ones.

If anything kills General Aviation it will be liability....
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
goaliemn
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:46 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:40 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Lawsuits lower costs for everyone by making things safer.

Wow.. I have no idea where that came from. Last major lawsuit Cessna had, they closed. Prices of planes skyrocketed as a manufacturer closed down. It forces companies to carry more insurance, as people file more frivolus lawsuits against the big pockets of corporations. In this case, icing is 90% avoidable. If you end up flying into icing, your training is to get out of it, either by turning around, or going above the clouds. Or, in this case, not taking off in icing conditions.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Take a look at the amazing development in GA, airplanes like the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22, immeasurably safer than aircraft in the past.

you can't say that, yet. There aren't enough in existance. The parachute, which you can get added to a Cessna as an aftermarket item, may add a false sense of security. I'd like to see another 10 years on the market to get some real numbers.

Quoting A342 (Reply 24):
Are there aircraft which are certified for flight into severe icing conditions ? I guess in the event of a war, military aircraft might have to do it.

Not really. In the case of most jets, once you take off and get above the clouds, icing isn't an issue. The ice will melt with the sunlight, or it will come off at those speeds fairly quickly.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:44 am

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 29):
I have over 20 years in the aviation industry and do not agree with your comments.

That is your problem.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 29):
There have a few examples where Cessna has paid millions out to settle a case, even when it was proved they were not at fault....just because it was the fastest/easiest way out.

First, show those examples. Second, if Cessna did nothing wrong, they should have fought the claims.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 29):
Law actually has little to do with this topic....it's whether huge (and often frivolous) lawsuits should continually be filed, even when the company is not to blame.

Law has everything to do with the topic. Cessna Caravans have a history of icing and Cessna has done nothing to fix it or warn of the dangers, at least nothing that has been offered here. The law says that the relief people have for the liability of a company is financial and that the forum is a lawsuit.

Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 30):
So you don't see the connection between payouts by insurance companies on behalf of their sued clients and insurance rates?

I don't see a connection between improper amounts and payouts.

Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 30):
Anyway, I can see an underlying assumption in your arguments that corporations are always guilty of deliberately and knowingly building dangerous products and are inherently evil.

Completely wrong. The doctrine in this country (the US for people who haven't been paying any attention at all over nearly 3 years of me being on this site) is that by building consumer products, you are assuming strict liability for the safety of those products.

Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 30):
Safety is a relative concept that is a trade-off between cost, benefit, convenience and personal risk aversion.

Safety is not relative. Someone's life or limb is not relative, nor should it be subject to a CBA. Of course, there is always inherent risk in doing anything, particularly when it involves mechanisms of transport, and every accident is not the fault of the manufacturer. Toyota isn't sued every time a Camry gets hit by a Corolla, nor should they be. If, however, there is an inherent problem in the design of something, the company can and should be punished for that, and the means we have of doing that is money.

Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 30):
Which is why regulations should protect both consumer and producer from unreasonable costs/prices and lawsuits.

And obviously open them up to lax quality standards and unsafe products  sarcastic . The citizen suit and the private attorney general doctrine exists in the US because that is the strongest method of market based action that doesn't involve massive government intervention in industry.

Quoting Starrion (Reply 31):
If anything kills General Aviation it will be liability....

No, if anything kills GA, it will be companies building bad airplanes and private citizens having no cause of action.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
What they do becomes safer when irresponsibility is punished. Take a look at the amazing development in GA, airplanes like the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22, immeasurably safer than aircraft in the past.

Please explain any correlation between lawsuits and the Cirrus aircraft??? I am puzzled. Some examples and facts??

Worse case, manufacturers actually have less money to spend on safety of new aircraft, not more, because they need to get the price down (inflated due to liability insurance).


This guy probably has more experience:

"“There is absolutely a cause and effect relationship between tort costs and insurance costs,” says David N. Zeehandelaar, partner and chair of insurance practice group at the national law firm Blank Rome LLP. “There is no doubt that the number of lawsuits and the size of the awards are driving up insurance costs, particularly in general aviation. It’s as clear as a bell.” "


Jimbo

[Edited 2006-10-10 22:57:03]
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:02 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 33):
That is your problem.

...that I know what I'm talking about?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 33):
First, show those examples. Second, if Cessna did nothing wrong, they should have fought the claims.

One that comes to mind is the Carnahan case (where the family asked for $100 million), where Cessna settled, admitting no liability, and with no proof (even in court) that anything was defective....even if they did return some of the award...after seeing the stupidity of their lawsuit no doubt, and the outrage from the industry. It was pilot error.


Jimbo

[Edited 2006-10-10 23:14:10]
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:10 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
You've "seen figures". Where? How were these determined?

I spent a few minutes on Google to find you some links and located the following: This article by a Harvard Law School professor states in its first paragraph that liability insurance averages $100,000 per airplane. This 1997 article quotes Beechcraft as estimating their liability insurances costs at between $75,000 and $80,000 per airplane. In this history of AOPA, a Cessna spokesperson is quoted as saying their liability costs average between 20% and 30% of the purchase price of an airplane. I think the point that liability insurance costs are a significant fraction of the purchase price of a new airplane has been made. For methodology and proprietary financial information, you'll have to contact individual manufacturers.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Unless demand is already outstripping supply, and I don't see a problem with the order books at Cirrus

I'm sorry, but that's just not the way that markets work. When demand "outstrips" supply, supply is increased. Are you seriously trying to claim that Cirrus, Beech, Piper, Cessna, Mooney, Diamond, etc. could not build or sell more airplanes if the quantity demanded increased by, say, 30% due to lower costs?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Tell that to the family that has lost someone. They have no way of getting this lady back

Including paying them millions of dollars.

Quoting N1120A:
and you want to take away their access to punishment of the culpable party as well.

Here's the problem: there is no evidence whatsoever that Cessna is responsible for the pilot's death. In the article I referenced above by the Harvard law professor, the author states that aircraft manufacturers are sued in over 90% of crashes, despite the fact that 85% of crashes are caused by pilot error. A judge or jury with no background in either flying or engineering does not have the technical ability to determine what the cause of a crash is. At a trial, the defendant will be discussing droplet size, certification requirements, statistical analysis, and PIREPs; the plaintiff will then show the weeping widower and parents, and talk about how the big rich evil greedy corporation took their loved one away. The result of such a trial will very likely not be based on sound engineering analysis; the insurance companies know that, which is why they are likely to settle for a fairly large sum of money. That money comes from somewhere - it is a cost that is passed on to the manufacturer, which then has to pass it on to the customer.

Look, you're a "true believer", which is a good thing - people are best at what they are passionate about and anyone you represent would appreciate and benefit from that fact. But the problem with that passion is that it seems to have blinded you to the other side of the coin. Most of the time, the person responsible for killing a pilot is the pilot him- or herself. And passing on those costs to the manufacturer regardless of actual responsibility represents a real cost that negatively affects anyone who flies or owns aircraft. If such suits were restricted only to those cases where the manufacturer was clearly negligent, as determined by someone independent, technically qualified, and unbiased, we would see a lot fewer of them. If, hypothetically, the NTSB were to investigate this crash and determine that the pilot had not cleaned the wings before takeoff as required, and that failure caused the crash, would you then advocate that the family drop the lawsuit?
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
RaginMav
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:22 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
What is it about the Caravan that makes it so prone to icing, the wing cannot be that specific can it? Why can't Cessna come up with a desing implentation of future build aircraft?

One thing not mentioned above is that this aircraft operates almost exclusively at altitudes where it is very prone to icing - An example is today's AIRMET for Icing across Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri etc..

It called for icing between freezing level (6000 - 8000) and FL240.

Caravans fly almost exclusively in that range, in fact, you could say their 'favorite' altitude is 11,000 or 12,000 feet. Reason being is that the freight dogs rarely have/use oxygen onboard, and are therefore limited to 12,500 or lower (they CAN go 12,501 -14,000 for 30 minutes without oxygen)

Consequently, they are SMACK in the middle of the most dangerous icing regime.

And with all that being said - it likely doesn't have much to do with this crash, as this crash ocurred 'shortly after takeoff'
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:46 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Yeah, money. Money because oil prices are high and because people are willing to pay a high rate for flight training, not because people get sued when they screw up

It was expensive when oil was relatively cheap. The cost of putting fuel in the plane is relatively small compared to the cost of insuring it.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Then you blame the insurance market, not lawsuits. When someone is liable, they have to pay for said liability, if insurance companies are charging idiotic amounts, then blame them and their record profits

What drives insurance rates more, risk of property damage or risk of liability law suits? Blaming the insurance companies is blaming the symptom and ignoring the virus.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
No they don't. Lawsuits lower costs for everyone by making things safer.

There is so much to work with here I don't know where to start.
Proud OOTSK member
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:47 am

Quoting Goaliemn (Reply 32):
Or, in this case, not taking off in icing conditions.

That is a question of fact, not law

Quoting Goaliemn (Reply 32):
Prices of planes skyrocketed as a manufacturer closed down.

And you blame products liability? How about blaming manufacturers who knew decided to gouge the consumer, or perhaps blaming insurance companies for their market manipulation

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 34):
Please explain any correlation between lawsuits and the Cirrus aircraft???

Lawsuits have led to greater safety and a willingness by manufacturers to invest in safety. Just like with seatbelts in cars

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 34):
"“There is absolutely a cause and effect relationship between tort costs and insurance costs,” says David N. Zeehandelaar, partner and chair of insurance practice group at the national law firm Blank Rome LLP. “There is no doubt that the number of lawsuits and the size of the awards are driving up insurance costs, particularly in general aviation. It’s as clear as a bell.” "

You are talking about a guy who represents insurance companies for a living. Of course he is going to say that. Even still, I know many insurance defense lawyers who prefer this system over one that depends on obtrusive regulation

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 35):
One that comes to mind is the Carnahan case (where the family asked for $100 million), where Cessna settled, admitting no liability, and with no proof (even in court) that anything was defective....even if they did return some of the award...after seeing the stupidity of their lawsuit no doubt, and the outrage from the industry. It was pilot error.

That was Cessna's fault. They didn't go for a trial on the merits and lost out.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 36):
I spent a few minutes on Google to find you some links and located the following: This article by a Harvard Law School professor states in its first paragraph that liability insurance averages $100,000 per airplane.

An article on a site that has a definate bias.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 36):
I'm sorry, but that's just not the way that markets work. When demand "outstrips" supply, supply is increased. Are you seriously trying to claim that Cirrus, Beech, Piper, Cessna, Mooney, Diamond, etc. could not build or sell more airplanes if the quantity demanded increased by, say, 30% due to lower costs?

The fact that there are so many planes out there and that GA has grown so much as to tell you that the demand is there. There is a point where ramping up production to meet demand is too debt intensive and companies just avoid it.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 36):
Including paying them millions of dollars.

Try quoting the whole thing next time

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 36):
Here's the problem: there is no evidence whatsoever that Cessna is responsible for the pilot's death. In the article I referenced above by the Harvard law professor, the author states that aircraft manufacturers are sued in over 90% of crashes, despite the fact that 85% of crashes are caused by pilot error.

And how many of those suits were tossed on summary judgment? I guess he forgot that point.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 36):
Look, you're a "true believer", which is a good thing

Don't patronize me.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:52 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
That was Cessna's fault.

Yes, you're right, they were wrong  Yeah sure

Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:58 am

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 40):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
That was Cessna's fault.

Yes, you're right, they were wrong

Hey, if they were innocent and had such an interest in supposedly ever escalating insurance rates, Cessna should have fought it tooth and nail.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:15 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Take a look at the amazing development in GA, airplanes like the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22, immeasurably safer than aircraft in the past.

If anything, the SR-20 and SR-22 are proving to have a worse safety record compared to types that have been in the GA fleet for 30-40 years. It is a very "hot" aircraft that is often being put into the hands of low-time pilots with more money than common sense, and although CAPS has saved a few people in dramatic fashion, proportiantely speaking more SR-20's and SR-22's are making smoking holes in the ground with loss of life than Cessna 172's and PA-28's. See Richard L. Collin's articles in Flying Magazine for the details.

Once upon a time (before World War II), a company set out to make a fool-proof, idiot-proof plane (couldn't be spun in, in fact it didn't even have rudder controls!) called the Ercoupe (pronounced "Air-coupe"). Funny thing was, many more pilots found creative ways to get into trouble with this flying flivver, and it ended up having a worse saftey record than it's contemporaries of the time (the Piper Cub, and the Taylorcraft series of high-wing singles).
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:18 am

They didn't because the outcome of a lawsuit, where these 'victims' have bottomless pockets and are politicians, have little to do with who was really to blame. Are you really in law and don't realize this?

"Now, the NTSB issued a statement in February of this year indicating that a vacuum problem was not the culprit - in their opinion. The Carnahan family nonetheless continued with their suit and, in July, reached a settlement with Cessna to the tune of $1.6 million. That got Cessna and Textron off the hook, but the remaining defendants still wonder how bad they will be hit. But are they all the ones who will ultimately foot the bill? I think not.

Why have insurance premiums gone through the roof for pilots in the last few years? The answer is liability. The insurance companies pay out damages to families who have discovered the power of being victims. The insurance companies then pass the losses on to us, the payors of premiums. And it is the exact same thing with medical insurance. It's the American way. When a person makes a bad decision, forget the idea of personal responsibility. Go sue someone!"


No doubt biased again.....they're all wrong....it makes us safer right??...and planes cheaper right??

Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:47 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):

An article on a site that has a definate bias.

So?

If your point is that my sources are wrong, perhaps it's time for you to provide some evidence of your claim that liability insurance is not a significant cost in general aviation manufacturing or flying. So far, I and others have given you evidence that it is and your response has boiled down to "Nuh-uh."

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):

The fact that there are so many planes out there and that GA has grown so much as to tell you that the demand is there. There is a point where ramping up production to meet demand is too debt intensive and companies just avoid it.

Is this response supposed to show that lower prices would not increase demand, or that increased demand would not result in increased supply? I'm sorry, but your comments do not exhibit a great deal of understanding either of economics or of general aviation.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Try quoting the whole thing next time

I did. Very next line. I guess you missed it.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):

Don't patronize me.

Respectfully, you'd understand the issue more if you toned down your ego just a little bit and listened to what people were saying. Whether you like it or not, your background in law biases you towards the idea that civil litigation is always going to result in a fair and equitable resolution for all parties. What I and others with aviation, engineering, and economics backgrounds are trying to point out is that there are flaws with using that system to come to a technically accurate apportionment of fault, that the system adds significant costs to aviation, that the costs of the system often bias defendants towards settling regardless of actual technical fault, and that those costs are passed on to those who are involved with general aviation.
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:03 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 42):
If anything, the SR-20 and SR-22 are proving to have a worse safety record compared to types that have been in the GA fleet for 30-40 years. It is a very "hot" aircraft that is often being put into the hands of low-time pilots with more money than common sense, and although CAPS has saved a few people in dramatic fashion, proportiantely speaking more SR-20's and SR-22's are making smoking holes in the ground with loss of life than Cessna 172's and PA-28's.

Yet those advances have sprung from many years of experience with people crashing GA aircraft and how to combat that. It also highlights pilot error much better than in cases where aircraft are suspect.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 43):
When a person makes a bad decision, forget the idea of personal responsibility. Go sue someone

And forget the idea of corporate responsibility, because no one will be keeping them in check.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 44):
Whether you like it or not, your background in law biases you towards the idea that civil litigation is always going to result in a fair and equitable resolution for all parties.

You assume that I only have a background in law. Further, I don't think that you will always get a fair resolution, only that the system we have is much more successful and much more American than ones that include massive regulation.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 44):
What I and others with aviation, engineering, and economics backgrounds

Again, you assume I only have a background in law. I have extensive experience with economics, particularly political economy.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 44):
that the costs of the system often bias defendants towards settling regardless of actual technical fault

Weren't you the one talking about supply and demand. If Cessna doesn't want to pay $600 an hour to a litigation firm, they need to have cheaper in house council.

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 44):
and that those costs are passed on to those who are involved with general aviation.

No, those are profits that are drawn from GA, not costs passed on.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:07 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
Again, you assume I only have a background in law. I have extensive experience with economics, particularly political economy.

Sorry, it's not obvious.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
aerodog
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:48 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:49 am

Many believe as do I, that when a lawsuit is settled in favor of the plaintiff, actual damages should be paid to plaintiff and punitive damages to the state, just as when we pay a speeding ticket, our fine goes to the state. Punitive damages would not be subject to the attorney contingency fees.

However, with the political muscle of the trial lawyers, don't expect change anytime soon.

There have been many articles written on aviation lawsuits. Many claim when an aircraft company walks into a courtroom they are presumed guilty and to win their case, must prove their innocence which is very difficult as previously discussed.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):



Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Quoting N231YE (Reply 19):
By the way, did any of you guys know that approximately $30,000USD of a brand new Cessna 172 goes towards paying off legal fees, lawsuits, etc...

Who lied and told you that?

Keep in mind 20 alpha, when Cessna pays their liability for this year, they are insuring not only this years production but also covering all the airplanes they have delivered over the past 16 years. The allocation for a 172 could easily be $30,000.

Looking at it another way, a $30,000 one time legal charge for 17 years of coverage does not sound unreasonable to me.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:53 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Who lied and told you that?

Actually, a professor with a Ph.D (doctor?) in a college class that I am taking now: Air Transportation.
 
virgin747
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 1999 12:20 am

RE: Cessna Being Sued For 25 Million

Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:45 pm

The transport Canada webpage on the investigation.... some good reading....

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/fact_s...0187/recs_a05c0187_a0601_a0602.asp

Who is online