owner assisted maintenance & legal issues

[mvivion]

George, et al,

To put this more into the perspective of aviation, take a look at the lawsuit which determined that the Super Cub was "an inherently dangerous aircraft", because it has a tailwheel and can be flown from the back seat, and the manufacturer (in 1950 whatever) didn't equip the airplane with shoulder harnesses.

There is a very long story about that lawsuit, but basically, the pilot, who knew precisely what he was doing, hit a van parked precisely where he knew it was parked, while he was performing an FAA prohibited act with his airplane.

Piper Aircraft lost the suit, the neighbor who owned the van settled, as I recall, and one of the outcomes was, when Cessna aircraft went back into production of light single engine aircraft, Russ Meyer was asked if Cessna would put the 180 or 185 back into production, he stated no, and cited that lawsuit.

How could a manufacturer build an aircraft type that the courts have determined to be inherently dangerous, or hazardous, or whatever the wording was?

A few manufacturers continue to build tailwheel airplanes nonetheless. And good on them. Most of them would probably fold if ever hit with a big suit, and make darn certain they don't have deep pockets in any case.

I blame the law profession to some degree, the insurance industry to some degree, the court system, juries, and most of all: US.

Pogo had it right, "We have met the enemy and he is us"

How we fix it, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that liability reform isn't going to do it.

You all make some good points, but how do you reconcile the woman who collected many bucks from the golden arches for making hot coffee?
Who's fault is that one?

Mike V

[Jr.CubBuilder]

I think the problem really is one of personal culpability and the unwillingness of our society to accept it. I don't remember my law history that well but there was a time up till (I believe) the early 1900s that the courts didn't consider such things as liability. So for example a company manufacturing non-grounded toasters with metal cases could not be held in fault when hundreds of people across the country got electrocuted by their product. Caveat emptor (buyer beware) was the law of the land, we as a country changed that to bring corporate manufacturers in line with humanity. However, like some improperly treated genetic experiment from a horror story of popular culture it has mutated into our present state of frivalous litigation. Yet still the jurys in every courtroom are made up of common citizens "a jury of our peers" ultimately it is up to them to say, enough already! It's up to them to say, your a f****** idiot for putting that steaming paper cup of coffee between your legs, or driving your plane into a truck because you're too stupid to make sure there's nothing in front of you.

Hmmm.....my beer has apparently run dry and I probably should stop hammering on this keyboard before I drink any more. Cheers

[auxtank]

Regarding the McDonalds Coffee Case, those who have expressed an interest in knowing the facts will find a brief and informative recounting at this website.

http://caoc.com/facts.htm

The 79 year old woman was hospitalized for 8 days after receiving third degree burns over six percent of her body. She required skin grafting and debridement treatments.

In the ten years prior to her injury, 700 people had made claims against McDonalds for burns sustained from their coffee. In spite of the obvious danger, McDonalds had continued to maintain and enforce a policy that its coffee be served as much as 55 degrees hotter than coffee served at home.

I do not know it for a fact, but I have heard that it was the sheer arrogance of the McDonalds representatives in court that angered the jury and left them feeling that McDonalds would not change its policy of holding its coffee at a dangerously high temperature unless there was a significant punitive damage award.

The woman had originally offered to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds was not willing to do that and sought to resolve themselves of responsibility in court.

Gordon Sandy
1948 Ragwing

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Having had the privilege of serving on a jury in a liability case I can tell you that it is/was no fun.

In my case there was a large mood swing throughout the jury as the case progressed.

We started out not really wanting to be there and thinking about the wages lost but resolved to do a good job since we couldn't leave. We heard the case. When we meet in the jury room all the juror's were so pissed at the person bringing the suit that we wanted to award the defendant money.

Basically a Doctor was involved in a fender bender which he freely admitted in court rendered NO damage to his car. He treated himself for whip lash over a period of 4 weeks with aspirin and other drugs he self prescribed. He was seeking damages for pain and suffering because his GOLF game had suffered during this time. No kidding the Doctor actually sat in court under oath and testified to these facts.

We the jury had to decide first whether there was any pain and suffering and if so what that was worth.

We couldn't deny he had some pain and suffering and the defendant didn't argue against it so how much was it worth. That took us 5 minutes to hash out. We could have been done in 10 minutes but we decided that in order to punish the Doctor we would drag out the deliberation into the afternoon so that he would have to pay his lawyer a higher fee. Then the judge offered to buy us lunch if we deliberated will we ate which we excepted to punish the court for hearing the case.

After a nice lunch we decided that the pain a suffering was worth $532.96 which was the average number each juror submitted on a secret poll.

The insurance company paying for the defendant was happy to pay the damage and the Doctor and his Lawyer were big losers. The Doctor had testified he had postponed a Golf outing and returned to Pennsylvania from Florida in order to testify at the hearing.

Of course we the people are the biggest losers with cases like this which flood our court system and bog it down.

[dacker]

This is NOT directed at you Bruce.

We keep talking about the "jury of our peers"...I can't help but think that maybe some of our "peers" are complete idiots, and may not be capable of intelligently functioning in a courtroom!

Now what was were you talking about Jim? Was it something to do with airplanes?


David

[GAHorn]

We keep talking about the "jury of our peers"...I can't help but think that maybe some of our "peers" are complete idiots, and may not be capable of intelligently functioning in a courtroom!
David

We have met the enemy...and he is us.

I have a close friend who rants about jury awards frequently, and blames lawyers for lots of ills. I noticed with interest however, that he managed to avoid jury duty the last two times he was summoned.

[Metal Master]

Now what was it you were talking about Jim? Was it something to do with airplanes?

David

Ya! I think so. But then sometimes what I say has so much more of a deeper meaning than what I intended. And I am very little in charge of what the rest of the world does or says. Sorry for the editing.

Jim

[dkalwishky]

Regarding the McDonalds Coffee Case, those who have expressed an interest in knowing the facts will find a brief and informative recounting at this website.

Not to be argumentative BUT, the woman spilled it. Period. Why should a jury award money to someone's own incompatance. It was an accident, thats why we have a term for what happened.

I'm sorry to rant, but this just ticks me off. To many people getting awarded money for thier own stupidity. Stuff happenes, it's sad, it's tragic, but it happens....

Dave

[N1478D]

Regarding the McDonalds Coffee Case, those who have expressed an interest in knowing the facts will find a brief and informative recounting at this website.

Not to be argumentative BUT, the woman spilled it. Period. Why should a jury award money to someone's own incompatance. It was an accident, thats why we have a term for what happened.

I'm sorry to rant, but this just ticks me off. To many people getting awarded money for thier own stupidity. Stuff happenes, it's sad, it's tragic, but it happens....

Dave

Ditto for me.

The longer time that people are allowed to not be held accountable for their own actions and behavior, the worse it becomes. Look at Iraq, elements there believe it is perfectly ok to murder and maim as long as they are doing it for the right cause, thier cause. Americans have started justifying these incredible judgements in court, partly because it has been allowed for so long of a time now. Nobody held a gun to the lady's head and made her buy the hot coffee! Nobody forced her to do business with McDonalds. If McDonalds came up with the business decision that they wanted to sell hot coffee for whatever reason, they should be able to do that. The fact that multiple people can come to the conclusion that it was McDonalds fault she spilt hot coffee on herself tells us it is only going to get worse before it gets better. Hopefully, we do not have a federal law against making hot coffee, but if we did, and then McDonalds made hot coffee, they would then be in trouble. Did the manufacturer of the box knives that the terrorists used on 9/11 get sued yet?

[170C]

Regarding the McDonald's coffee situation and many, many other cases, does anyone in the jury boxes today understand the term "personalf responsibility" and what it means? There are a lot of serious, well meaning jurors that do their best (?) to decide legal cases across the great country of ours. Most of us would not choose to live anywhere else, but it galls me to hear of people filing lawsuits when they failed to accept the responsibility for their own actions. All those times I had a #2 pencil in my shirt pocket and bent over and had it stick me in the chest--it only takes once---should I sue the manufacturer, the retailer, etc? I don't think so. Its up to me to be responsible for what I do with pencils and guns, etc. These awards cost us all because in most situations some BIG INSURANCE company ends up paying the award and guess who eventually pays the insurance company? That's right, you and me. I think most of these cases should be thrown out before they ever get to the courthouse, but if the defendent wins, the plantiff should have to pay the legal expenses, lost time, etc. of the defendent. My $.05 worth!

[BradW]

We keep talking about the "jury of our peers"...I can't help but think that maybe some of our "peers" are complete idiots, and may not be capable of intelligently functioning in a courtroom!
David

This discussion makes me want to chime in with my Jury experience. I'll try to make a long story short: It was an injury case of a boy that lived with his Mom in an apartment. Boy was cutting through bushes and cut his leg on a prunned branch stump. Suing the landlord. Seemed to me that boy shouldn't be cutting through the bushes.... not intended for normal human occupancy and all of that. I couldn't see how this thing ever even made it to court, let alone take up 3 days of my time. When we were finially released to deliberate, I was shocked at the reaction of the jurors... all over the map. One old lady thought they had a right to sue, only because of the old saying, "if someone hurts themselves on your property, they could sue you". Based on that logic, which she couldn't even explain I might add, she was ready to award the kid what they were asking for in total!

Another thing, wasn't the original intent of Jury of Peers to be truely peers, i.e. neighbors, witnesses, etc...?

There was more to the case that turned me down, but I won't get into it here. One thing for sure, it surely made the point to me that our legal system needs help!

[GAHorn]

Toungue in cheek>>>>>Yep. Those folks who's doctors ordered them to take Vioxx or Thalidomide should have absolutely NO GROUNDS to collect any damages. It doesn't matter whether they had family/kids to support when they died or cannot earn a living because they have no hands or legs. We should just outlaw any lawsuits against companies that represent their products as good for us, even tho' we are harmed by them. Companies all have only our personal good in their hearts when they sell us stuff. <

Any of us who are inflamed against jury awards for others....don't have enough to do, in my opinion. Unless YOU are willing to spend all your time volunteering for jury duty...then you have no room to complain what the juries that DO serve ...decide such things. After all, it is THEY who sat and listended to the evidence and only THEY who are qualified to make the judgement. They are guided by a judge and a system of laws to make those judgements. There's no legitimate reason in my view, to deny an injured person the right to air his grievance among his fellow citizens (who by the way, were also selected/approved by the lawyer representing the party being sued) and seek redress.
Efforts to change the law to prevent a citizen seeking redress ...is nothing but a corporate-inspired propaganda victory to protect themselves from their own unscrupulous behavior...that they are unable to defend themselves against in courtrooms (despite their huge legal advantage over the individual in money and lawyers.)

Think about this. The prevalent view here seems to be "if you're injured....it's your fault....and it makes no difference that I've only read anecdotal stories about your injury, and I don't really know diddely about it because I've only heard anecdotes about the evidence, but...you shouldn't be compensated for your injury no matter how grievous it might be proven to disinterested third-party fellow citizens because it'll reduce the profits of the company that hurt you and it might cost me a bit more to buy their products for myself."

BradW, the fact that you served on that jury is commendable. And I'm certain you expressed your viewpoint when it came time for the jury to vote on a verdict. Now,...if you truly believe in democracy...then you'll acquiesce to the majority vote of that jury, and you'll feel that justice was done. ...Remember, Justice isn't defined by "what pleases any individual" such as yourself. Justice is the verdict reached by consensus and majority rule.
Does anyone present believe that corporations never win their lawsuits? Really? (Or have you never heard of the many years of tobacco company rulings that favored the big tobacco interests over the ruined health of thousands whom were addicted by their own government who using public tax-dollars, promoted the product to it's citizen-soldiers?)
The few large awards heard about only recently are a drop-in-the-bucket to the profits reaped for decades by those companies who hid their product's dangers, and even then whose execs. testified to congress under oath that "tobacco is not addictive" and that "nicotine is not a drug" or that "second hand smoke is not harmful."

This willingness on our part to criticize our fellow citizens efforts to achieve equitable treatment is mindful of the many years during the cold war, in which we heard about Communist countries encouraging children to betray their parents, and neighbors to turn in their neighbors. Why are we so eager to criticize our fellow citizens who, having been injured, and using their own resources, time, and money, must endure a labyrinthial legal system to redress their situation? Why do we jump on the individual and their legal representatives....rather than the big interests who hoped to profit by their neglectful actions? It's as if we are all joining together to attack individuals ...rather than protect the individual and his rights. .... HOw can THAT be the ideals of America?

(By the way,...a "jury of peers" does not mean a jury made up of fellow pilots. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or middle-income people living in brick homes in a suburb. Or any other identifiable group.
A "jury of peers" means: Disinterested, third party people made up of fellow citizens having no other particular connection, or interest in the outcome of the trial.
Think about it. Would YOU want YOUR trial to be decided upon by a pre-arranged jury of professional "trial-deciders"? Or a group of people whose claim to their jury seat consisted of their "experience" or a particular, or prior "Knowlege" of your case? Wouldn't you hope, in the interests of "fairness"...that a jury be made up of randomly selected people who are citizens-in-good-standing and have no special connection to either your prosecutor OR the law enforcement agency who brought you to court?
Don't fall for the sophomoronic idea that Jury of "Peers" means people identical to yourself in profession, color, religion, income-level or anything else. It only guarantess that there will be NO particular interest group represented who will decide on your freedom or your case. Your "peer-group" is merely those citizens of nondescript identification...just like yourself. Imagine that you were improperly arrested and beat up by a rogue cop while handcuffed in the backseat of a cop car. (Like my elderly father was, when he was rear-ended by a motorist while on his way to preside as chairman over the city's charity hospital board meeting. He'd asked for the lady's insurance info after the cop had concluded his accident investigation, and the cop became irritated because he percieved Dad was ignoring his command to leave the accident scene. The cop may not have realized Dad was hard-of-hearing and hadn't heard his alleged command, but in any case, the accident investigation was over, there was no law against the parties exchanging info, and they weren't blocking traffic.)
Can you imagine how Dad's case against the cop would have gone if the cop and been tried by a "jury of his peers"....a jury of COPS?
And Dad was happy for the rogue cop to get 6 weeks suspension from duty, 6 months of retraining in the academy, and a year of probation on duty, for having suffered a beating while handcuffed, a night in jail, and denial of legal representation at the preliminary and no phone call or food for 24 hours. He did not ask for, nor received any monetary compensation. (Luckily, his heart condition did not flare up while denied his drugs, and his unlocked abandoned car did not get robbed of almost $6 thousand dollars in negotiable securities he'd intended to drop off at the bank after the hospital board meeting.) The jury of peers was made up of a variety of no-bodies,....who listened to the case, and made their verdict known.....just like it's supposed to be. I'm sure many friends of the cop thought it a wrong verdict. (No, I'm not anti-cop. I once served on a small town police force.)

(I hope our widely divergent views such as on this subject do not injure our true friendships related to Cessna 170's.)

[zero.one.victor]

There's extremes for both sides. Each situation must be considered on it's own merits. Take guns-- if I buy a quality handgun & it blows up in my face (using standard factory ammo), blinding me for life--well, I feel I have grounds for compensation by the manufacturer. Now, if I was to take that gun & kill or maim someone else, I feel they are NOT entitled to compensation by the manufacturer. They are entiltled to compensation by me, but since the manufacturer have much deeper pockets than I do, guess whose name is gonna be on the legal papers? Like the old saying goes: "guns don't kill people-- I DO!"
This sort of situation is playing out now, with the DC sniper case. The Seattl area gun shop where the rifle was "obtained" was sued - and settled - for big bucks. Extenuating circumstances were that the shop either did not know the rifle was no longer in their posession (stolen), indicating poor inventory control as well as poor security, or sold the rifle without any of the legally-required paperwork, reciept/bill-of-sale, etc , which I find doubtful. But the shop (a very large operation) has way deeper pockets than the culprits in the shootings, so guess who gets sued?

Eric

[N1478D]

Why Eric? Why should you be compensated? It's a gun, sometimes guns blow up. What if it was the only gun that that manufacturer had made that had blown up, it was just an accident. What if the gun had been messed with by somebody at sometime? What if it was bad metal from the supplier? At some point, it needs to be a persons's decision, hey, I realize that there is a slight chance that this thing might blow up and hurt me, but, I'm willing to take that risk because I like to shoot guns. If it blows up, and if lawyers were not lurking around the corner, a manufacturer might have the feelings of taking care of the situation. But, without any checks and balances in place, the longer the lawyers can drag the case out the more money the lawyers make, and the higher the award the more money the lawyers make. Greedy lawyers are going to push and push and push so they can maximize their compensation.

[BradW]

Whoa, that was quite a tirade. I agree with your sentiment that this shouldn't get in the way of our common interests. I do, for some reason feel the need to explain or defend.

I certainly didn't intend to anger anyone here, merely tell a story of my experience relating to a conversation string here. Personally, I think it's "sophomoronic" to assume that I, or anyone who voiced similar views here, would ever think that it's inappropriate for an injured person to ever have their 'day in court'. There has to be a line of common sense drawn someplace though -- sometimes it's legit, and sometimes it's not.
In my story, that kid shouldn't have been cutting through the bushes. Simple fact is that he was doing something he shouldn't have. He should be using the sidewalk. Now, if he had fallen because of.... let's just say some rotten stairs. And let's say that the landlord knew about them (or should have known), and chose to do nothing, then the situation would be different. As several have said here already, it's about taking some responsibility for ones own actions.

Gahorn, You bring up some good examples about groups that were wronged through no fault of their own. While some of these other stories may be 'anecdotal' as you say, they are mostly about people doing stupid things and trying to blame someone else for it. Big Difference. Nobody said "if you're injured....it's your fault....", in a blanket statement as you suggested.

You said something regarding believing in Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule. Sometimes good, most times bad. Just a little something to chew on -- That's why our founding fathers structured a Democratic Republic, as opposed to a Democracy.

Thanks for your kind words regarding my jury service as commendable. I am always wiling to do my civic duty, and above that just plain help others and do the "right thing". Please keep in mind tough, that I was forced to serve -- a very different thing.

I'm no lawyer, but I think the Peer concept you've outlined is the current deffinition. I think my point was missed. Anyway, my point was -- would you want to be tried by a jury of 12 like the old lady I described in my story? I think not. (After 3 days of testimony, for her none of that mattered. what did, was only the old wives tale. She did not even understand that if it were that simple, they wouldn't have needed to go to a jury trial)

I'm sorry to hear about your father's case. Perhaps that was a bad police officer, or perhaps he made an honest mistake, or I hate to say it, perhaps your dad was disrespectful to the officer. Hey, we've all done things that later we see could have been done better.

Now, let's get back to some airplane talk.....