lawsuit in Philly

[Shadrach]

On 6/10/2018 at 9:00 PM, M20Doc said:

Two things which would help in these situations. Make the plaintive pay the legal bill of the defendant when they lose and get smarter juries.

Clarence

A lack of intellectual endowment on the part of the jurors can be taken advantage of by either side.  What has genuinely always perplexed me is why the final NTSB determination is not admissible.  From my understanding of the incident in question, the mag was tested and found to be functioning properly after the accident and no post accident evidence suggests that it contributed to the crash. Given the known facts there ought to be a way to keep cases like this from going to trial. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Shadrach

[midlifeflyer]

54 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

A lack of intellectual endowment on the part of the jurors can be taken advantage of by either side.  What has genuinely always perplexed me is why the final NTSB determination is not admissible.  

There are a couple of reasons, some interrelated. The most-often mentioned ones are goal, manpower and representation.

Goal: although there is a probable cause determination, the primary goal of NTSB investigations is not to assign blame to individuals or corporations; it is to find accident causes so recommendations can be made on correcting them.  That's the exact opposite  the primary goal of litigation.  

Manpower: The NTSB does not investigate every accident fully. It can't. Some get a pretty cursory examination, but still get a probable cause determination. Part of the concern is the weight a judge or jury would be likely to give the report (just as you are probably inclined to) regardless of the depth or completeness of the NTSB's investigation. 

Representation. The NTSB was designed as a neutral body. It strives to maintain that neutrality and there are rules ion place for that. When the NTSB, in an accident, brings the manufacturer, for example, into an investigation to get the benefit of its expertise. Actually, it doesn't bring the "the manufacturer." It brings in specific people who work for the manufacturer who have subject expertise to assist the NTSB, with strict limitations, such as

"Persons responsible for managing litigation or insurance interests, members of the media, and, generally, corporate executives who will not be providing needed technical expertise as participants on an NTSB investigative group are not permitted to participate in an NTSB investigation."  You can read the agreement those folks have to sign here.

Put those three together and you have a lot of the rationale for keeping the NTSB's fault determination away from the courts. You might even add a 4th - subjecting NTSB investigators to cross-examination by an attorney who has had far more research done into the causes of a single accident than the NTSB can, after repeated attacks,  affect that process and  the enormous credibility the agency has because of its zealous protection of its litigation neutrality.

[midlifeflyer]

On 9/24/2018 at 2:16 PM, Ftlausa said:

After reading the Motion for Mistrial (and yes, I am an attorney), I can start to understand why aircraft engines are so darn expensive.  This litigation, which appears in my opinion to lack any reasonable foundation in law or fact against Continental, has probably cost Continental well in excess of $1 million in attorney's fees and costs to date.  I have been in a number of high stakes cases, and litigation is an expensive proposition.  Best guess is that the plaintiff's attorney is hoping that the jury is going to want to award something because of the underlying tragedy.  This is the type of case where the judge is expected to intervene and prevent that type of result and decide the case on the law.  There is always the appellate courts as well.      

Since I have not read all the deposition transcripts and expert reports, I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

[Ftlausa]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Since I have not read all the deposition transcripts and expert reports, I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

Obviously I have not read them either, but assuming Continental's motions was accurate, the theory of liability looks suspect.  

[Ftlausa]

6 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

I will have a discussion with NTSB Chair Bruce Landsberg, who is giving the keynote presentation at the #MooneySummit VI on Saturday morning about NTSB probable cause reports admissibility. On the surface to this non barrister it would seem just the title of "probable" would be speculative in nature, easily motioned to dismiss by either party. Now the factual report would seem to be admissible with subpoenas issued to the respective NTSB experts deriving the report. But i am just a flight instructor...this is well above my pay grade to opine

So, its actually a bit more complicated and is a function of the rules against the admissibility of hearsay.  There are some exceptions for certain government reports, but the exception is limited in scope.   

[kortopates]

Not a lawyer but it seems obvious the role of the NTSB would severely be impeded if their findings were allowed to be used as evidence in court.  The goal of the NTSB is entirely to promote safety by not assessing blame but by getting all experts together to work cooperatively to determine what may have gone wrong and to make recommendations to avoid similar outcomes in the future. Cooperation would end the second those involved believed their admissions could possibly be used against them as evidence for negligence, admitting fault, wrong doing etc. I don't know to what extent the participants are protected but clearly without the provision to not treat the reports as evidence they would not get the necessary cooperation they need to do their job.

Edited September 27, 2018 by kortopates

[jaylw314]

I think the counterargument would be that if the NTSB produced a finding that exonerated someone (as opposed to placing blame), it would be a shame that that could not be produced as evidence.  For example, if someone on Sully's flight had been injured or killed and sued him, wouldn't it have been helpful to be able to produce an NTSB report concluding there was no realistic action on his part he could have taken?

[kortopates]

25 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I think the counterargument would be that if the NTSB produced a finding that exonerated someone (as opposed to placing blame), it would be a shame that that could not be produced as evidence.  For example, if someone on Sully's flight had been injured or killed and sued him, wouldn't it have been helpful to be able to produce an NTSB report concluding there was no realistic action on his part he could have taken?

Maybe, but my point is that with out the widespread cooperation of everyone involved, afforded by not allowing them to be used in that manner, the NTSB reports would loose their credibility and would have very little value to any of us. 

[Andy95W]

Mark- thanks for posting.  I never really understood why the NTSB reports weren't admissible, you explained it so I could.

One related question, using the Philly case as an example.  Turning the whole thing around and not using the finding of probable cause- Why couldn't an expert witness say that the NTSB tested the magneto and found it to be functional when they did their post accident investigation?

[DXB]

I'm guessing the motion for mistrial was granted, and the status conference in October is to determine if a jury trial will still be pursued.

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, Ftlausa said:

Obviously I have not read them either, but assuming Continental's motions was accurate, the theory of liability looks suspect.  

In 40 years, I don't think I have ever seen a situation in which, assuming the motion by a party seeking to win the case is accurate, the other side's theory did not look suspect  

Edited September 27, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[midlifeflyer]

12 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I think the counterargument would be that if the NTSB produced a finding that exonerated someone (as opposed to placing blame), it would be a shame that that could not be produced as evidence.  For example, if someone on Sully's flight had been injured or killed and sued him, wouldn't it have been helpful to be able to produce an NTSB report concluding there was no realistic action on his part he could have taken?

Why would the "shame" factor only work in one direction? To use your example, wouldn't it have been helpful to produce an NTSB report concluding the crew screwed up so persons injured and the family of those killed could be compensated without the enormous cost of litigation eating into their recoveries?

[steingar]

The NTSB report can't be used because its basically heresay.  An NTSB official can't really be questioned because they do have to be neutral when it comes to manufacturers.  However, the defense can get an expert witness who's read the report and looked at the evidence and can give the jury his or her expert opinion.  Of course, the plaintiff's can also bring in their own expert witness, and at the end fit day the jury will believe whichever of them has the biggest hair.

 

A court of law is no place for an honest man.

[DXB]

Oh goody - Mistrial, now listed again for trial again in March.  These scumbags are mighty tenacious.

[rpcc]

anyone have a link to the original accident thread?  

[DXB]

Wheels of "justice" still at work.  Litigating since summer of 2015, mistrial last fall, new trial date set for July 1 2019.  

[ArtVandelay]

Wheels of "justice" still at work.  Litigating since summer of 2015, mistrial last fall, new trial date set for July 1 2019.  

That’s a long list of esquires...


Tom

[DXB]

29 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

That’s a long list of esquires...


Tom

Your aviation expenditures hard at work....

[flyboy0681]

17 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

That’s a long list of esquires...


Tom

Anybody know the oranges of attorney's using the title "esquire"?

[Tony Starke]

I don't see Morgan and Morgan...For the people.

[FloridaMan]

17 hours ago, Tony Starke said:

I don't see Morgan and Morgan...For the people.

At just over 5ft tall, he’s tough to spot in a crowd. 

[carusoam]

Siri spelling....  oranges of = origins of ..... 

-a-

[DXB]

Folks remember this trial?  It appears to have produced a jury verdict for the plaintiff in Philadelphia City Court...trying to figure out the amount.  The most plaintiff-friendly place in the nation.

Addendum: 6.3 million. Think about that next time you pay an obscene price for parts and/or labor.

It would be nice to see cases like this get more granular coverage in the aviation world.

Edited October 2, 2019 by DXB

[KSMooniac]

Grrrrr. This makes me so angry.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[FloridaMan]

Can these things be appealed?

Does this mean the idiot who didn’t preflight and his loser kids are going to raise our premiums?

Edited October 4, 2019 by FloridaMan