26 million $ Verdict against Lycoming

[PTK]

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=5fb16b92-9026-42b9-9583-f783a59cd8c0

VFR flight into IMC with subsequent impact into terrain...and Lycoming gets to pay the bill because of some ambulance chasers manipulated some ignorant and clueless jury with no concept whatsoever.

And then we scratch our heads why GA is in a state of rapid decline.

Sickening!

[jetdriven]

I think that was the case the judge and jury decided to punish Lycoming becasue they refused to turn over documents relating to carburetor floats.  Insteresting, though, because that didnt even seem to be an issue in this crash.   http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/articles/lawsuits-1/

 

some more info:  http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=bffb13a8-138f-41ab-bbc1-081c61035f5e

[RocketAviator]

Beyond sad for the loss of these folks but beyond absurd that our legal system is so screwed up......

It all about deep pockets with an absence of a moral compass!

[scottfromiowa]

Way to go jury....what a bunch of knucklheads.

[EDNR-Cruiser]

My only concern is that you guys in the US are usually a step ahead of us... - but I wouldn't want to live in such an absurd system!!! Would you please be so gentle and keep it on the other side of the big pond this time? 

We are already governed by a bunch of criminal braindeads... - no need to make it worse...

[jetdriven]

We've already seen some of that stonewalling and non-cooperation from Lycoming, and it ain't cool. According to them the high iron in oil analysis is from rust that comes off the cylinder walls from sitting overnight or two days. No problem. Yep. 200 PPM.... This is 5-10 times average from all the dozens of reports sent to me by Mooneyspace members.

Their latest revision of oil analysis was 1972.

[aviatoreb]

This and cases like it - bad news.  It would/will surely kill GA entirely as avweb clearly states.  In the second article they state their worry of the continued existence of lycoming if this and that cherokee six 89M settlement were to stand.

 

A question for the lawyers.  What about the general aviation revitalization act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act

 

I thought that meant that even if there is a negligence link found - and never mind in this case that the ntsb states that the engine was still running or the aftermarket carb was not theirs - I thought that since this is an engine manufactured more than 18 years ago, that their are not liable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act

 

Lawyer friends here, what is the disconnect and where am I wrong?

[N601RX]

I remember this from a few months ago. If I remember correctly this did not go to trial and there was no jury verdict. This was a case of Lycoming willfully withhold data they were supposed to turn over to the plaintiff and the judge did this to punish Lycoming for not turning it over.

[AndyFromCB]

You know what they say, the first step to losing a trial is jury selection.

[DonMuncy]

There is no such thing as jury selection. Only jury de-selection. You can't pick who you want, only who you don't want.

[jetdriven]

If they lose both cases on appeal they can always file bankruptcy and reorganize with a new name and blow out the judgments. And I'd like to see how many of these stunning awards actually get paid out and for what Amount. It's how business is done these days. Look at Mooney for example, or any of the major airlines.

[DonMuncy]

I did a little more looking, and (if the information I am getting is correct) it appears that because Lycoming didn't turn over documents as they were supposed to, the judge decreed that they were liable to the plaintiffs and had the jury only determine the damages.

[N33GG]

There is no such thing as jury selection. Only jury de-selection. You can't pick who you want, only who you don't want.

And you only get a limited number of strikes. Good luck!

[AndyFromCB]

And you only get a limited number of strikes. Good luck!

 

A truly good attorney doesn't know anything about jury selection/deselection. His/her cases never go that far. Cases are won/lost in depos. That's where lycoming lost this one. If your case ever goes that far you might as well toss a coin in the air.

[John Pleisse]

So, Lycoming now pays for VFR into IMC accidents for withholding irrelevant information?

 

Lycoming should examine they're legal team. They got out-lawyered. The article was unclear. Was this a judgement on appeal or was this the first judgment?

[aviatoreb]

This and cases like it - bad news.  It would/will surely kill GA entirely as avweb clearly states.  In the second article they state their worry of the continued existence of lycoming if this and that cherokee six 89M settlement were to stand.

 

A question for the lawyers.  What about the general aviation revitalization act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act

 

I thought that meant that even if there is a negligence link found - and never mind in this case that the ntsb states that the engine was still running or the aftermarket carb was not theirs - I thought that since this is an engine manufactured more than 18 years ago, that their are not liable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act

 

Lawyer friends here, what is the disconnect and where am I wrong?

 

Bump.

 

I repeat - is there a lawyer here that can explain why the 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act does not absolve Lycoming in the first place before the case ever got to a judge.

[Piloto]

You know what they say, the first step to losing a trial is jury selection.

That is very true. The way the case is conveyed to the jury is that someone has to pay for the relatives suffering whether thay are at fault or not. In this case you do not want jurors with analytical minds but with sentimental attitude that feel sorry about the relatives. This is also comon with automobile accidents. Factors that affect the jury decision are like if any of the occupants was a sole provider for the family.

 

José 

[PTK]

So, Lycoming now pays for VFR into IMC accidents for withholding irrelevant information?

 

Lycoming should examine they're legal team. They got out-lawyered. The article was unclear. Was this a judgement on appeal or was this the first judgment?

Apparently according to the article it was first judgement and Lycoming didn't appeal. I don't understand why.

There was no engine failure of any kind. It was a classic case of VFR flight into IMC impacting the side of a mountain that was in the way!

Although very unfortunate and sad for the victims and their families left behind, I can't see how a party not at fault is expected to pay.