rantoul lawsuit

__________IN REPLY TO________________________
Then (truthfully) why are so many businesses named in the lawsuit, Gary?
______________________________________________

I honestly do not know. I have no idea why lawyers name so many businesses or why they do half the things they do. But also keep in mind that not being party to the actual case. There is a lot that I don't know.

With respect to the rest of your post. I agree 110%.

Gary

Quote

Quote

.... that is easily the most heartless thing i have ever heard anyone say in my life.

Agreed. Not only that, but I'm shocked at who it came from. I've never seen such an exhibition of bad taste.

Bad taste is defined by the actions of the litigants against Rod, and I can't bring myself to buy into the sympathy angle used to make their case.

Some years back a friend of mine was killed by being in a flight operation area without prior coordination with the pilot. The bottom line was that he fucked up and died, and the pilot and the mother of the deceased hugged each other in tears at the funeral. There was no blamestorming or litigation.

In this case it is every bit as clear that it was a case of death by misadventure, where the deceased was in an area devoted to aircraft operations and died as a result. It's a shame and all that, but the bottom line is that he had no business whatsoever being where he was when he was struck.

By the time I was done searching for his arm (we never did find it - most likely a coyote made off with it) I didn't have much sympathy for his misfortune, and seeing what it did to the staff of the helicopter operation did away with my last vestiges of concern.

If the posts by his brother in law shortly thereafter had demonstrated acceptance of the full responsibility he took by going where he was forbidden by law to go (check the regs), I might have felt a modicum of sympathy. There was, however, a public exercise of denial of the first order, and I am not okay with that.

That it has come to the point of civil action is nothing short of evil, and defense of the decision to litigate in this case is as repugnant as would be someone trying to explain why they think rape is really not so bad.

Anyone who thinks that any good can come of the suit is misinformed. No "truth" will come out as a result, and only further destruction can ensue.

The result of Tim's actions was unintended but predictable; the civil action being pursued now is purely mercenary and without any saving graces.

If his memory is to be honored, it should not by by engaging in despicable actions in his name and thus befouling it.


BSBD,

Winsor

Why do lawyers name a number of people to a lawsuit? Several reasons.

1) You aren't sure who is as fault. If a cop has a list of suspects, they talk to everyone to narrow it down. Lawyers can't really do this without a lawsuit. Ethical lawyers will dismiss entities (hopefully for a waiver of costs if the defendant is willing) once the information determines that they can't be faulted. Why the hell would an attorney want to spend time and money on something he knows won't do any good? On top of that, if the lawyer finds out that these other guys are to blame and he didn't name them, then the liable parties might escape.

2) Pragmatism. One of the (un)fortunate things about our system is that is someone is wronged by a bunch of people, he can be made whole by any one of them. So, if two people ar 50/50 responsible, and one of them is broke and in jail, then the other guy can pay 100 percent of it, and go after the other wrongdoer. The law chooses that a wrongdoer will take the hit over the innocent party.

These are but a couple.

I won't comment on the veracity of the suit short of saying that with the information I've got it's an attempt to get some cash. I can say nothing of its merits.

Quote

1) You aren't sure who is as fault. If a cop has a list of suspects, they talk to everyone to narrow it down. Lawyers can't really do this without a lawsuit. Ethical lawyers will dismiss entities (hopefully for a waiver of costs if the defendant is willing) once the information determines that they can't be faulted. Why the hell would an attorney want to spend time and money on something he knows won't do any good? On top of that, if the lawyer finds out that these other guys are to blame and he didn't name them, then the liable parties might escape.

Agreed in theory. Here, though, and in this particular, albeit I don't know the details at all...(I am making large SWAGS heree...)supposing that they are indeed naming the fuel manufacturer is nothing short of ridiculous. There was no issue with the fuel (that would have been apparent with the FAA invdestigation), or perhaps naming the farmer who allowed his cornfield to be used while growing crops too high or something. Then it simply becomes messy, and a deliberate attempt to throw whatever they can against the wall and see what sticks...in the process harming many who may not have even been remotely connected, let alone liable, in the suit...perhaps in an attempt to garner "go away money", perhaps in an honest search, from the litigants' perspective, for the truth.

I maintain that if the litigants' position is truly and honestly to find out the truth, more will come from not suing than from suing.

I don't know the details of the case, other than what has been detailed here on DZ.com...and while there are some very interesting allegations from all sides, there is not yet enough for me to draw any conclusion, and it is, in fact, not my place to do so.

Just my .02...and thanks, as always, Jerry, for outlining a legal perspective.

Ciels-
Michele

On this one you have a point. Many attorneys toss everything to the wall and see what sticks. This is unfortunate, particularly considering how many people face a lawsuit when there was no purpose for them to be involved.

Suing the fuel producer seems ludicrous to me. However, there is a legal reason to sue farmer under invitee liability (a common law duty to keep people on your property free from foreseeable risks) but it does not seem like this is genuine.

On the whole, I agree with you. And I believe that much of this is an attempt to find pockets.

Quote

On the whole, I agree with you. And I believe that much of this is an attempt to find pockets.

Well said. I think that's the bottom line.

Now, let's sit back and think, why is the City of Rantoul being named? Ya think that the city is going to want the skydivers back if they have to pay out to the lawsuit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it cost money to defend one's self in court? Maybe there are so many named because some of them will just do a settlement, and not bother going to court.

And these are the attorneys who will continue to toil without good cause.

Many attorneys just don't get it. Plaintiffs firms, if working on contingency, are concerned with efficiency. How can they get the most bang for the buck.

Attorneys causing parties to settle for some small amount to avoid a court battle are disfavored. In fact, they are despised by their peers

Attorneys like that, short of getting the pat on the back, end up facing grueling litigation against those that defend. Most attorneys, in fact, get very motivatedin the effort to defend their clients against shysters.

You are right, bill. Many attorneys practice law this way. I've defended doctors who should have been dismissed by a plaintiff's counsel and were not, simply because plaintiff's counsel wanted "control." I gave him control. - of 35 separate and distinct interrogatories to answer from 6 different doctors and two entity defendants. Yeah, I flooded him with discovery. It's easier to ask 280 questions than it is to answer them, and a whole lot cheaper.

Hopefully, the sham defendants will teach the plaintiff a lesson about whom to sue.

It is a shame when people practice like that, though. In private, most attorneys will agree.

Quote

You aren't sure who is as fault. If a cop has a list of suspects

Nope, those guys don't think that at all. There is no suspicion, just deep pockets.

"Joint and several liability" (for others reading this) is where you sue 10 people/companies. They assign liability. Everybody is broke but the deep-pockets company who is assigned 1% of the blame. However, the company picks up 99% of the financial burden because everyone else is broke.

They are hoping for "go away" money from the city, etc.

Quote

Ethical lawyers will dismiss entities..

My ex-g/f worked for the biggest pers injury firm in Florida. Everyone of those guys made over 300K a year, a few over $2M. They had their own doctors and coached people on what to say(lie) and fake.

I doubt you will find a huge number of "ethical" personal injury attorneys.

Quote

My ex-g/f worked for the biggest pers injury firm in Florida. Everyone of those guys made over 300K a year, a few over $2M. They had their own doctors and coached people on what to say(lie) and fake.

I once read an article how much the liability lawsuit system in the US costs your economy compared to countries where it is much more difficult to suit and/or there are "no fault" compensation schemes.

Can't remember the detail, but the numbers were staggering. An American once told me that most politicians know this system is no good, but most of the people on Capitol Hill are lawyers.... so no chance of any change....

Quote

I once read an article how much the liability lawsuit system in the US costs your economy compared to countries where it is much more difficult to suit and/or there are "no fault" compensation schemes.

Can't remember the detail, but the numbers were staggering. An American once told me that most politicians know this system is no good, but most of the people on Capitol Hill are lawyers.... so no chance of any change....

No-fault sux! In Florida, it makes the chiropractors rich and that's about it.

You also have to consider that without lawsuits companies would be free to sell dangerous products to save a few bucks and also whether it's a good idea for the government to take care of injured people or the people who caused the injuries.

Quote

You also have to consider that without lawsuits companies would be free to sell dangerous products to save a few bucks

I do not agree. I have lived in countries where it is difficult to suit and/or there were "no fault" schemes for certain areas like medical treatment, traffic accidents etc. Products were in general not more dangerous. Reason being that there are other laws and (technical) standards that can be applied in regard to making companies responsible for breach of safety. Both financially (fines) and by making managers personally responsible.

The biggest difference I see is that you do not find these stupid "stickers" and warnings everywhere. Do you think putting large stickers on parachutes and containers telling you skydiving is dangerous makes the sport more safe? Do you think a sticker on a plastic bag stops a 3 year old from putting the plastic bag over its head? A lot of money spend on "product safety" in the US is not to make the product more safe, it is spend to stop lawsuits - big difference.

I remember many years ago being involved in exporting products from Europe to the US - product cost were 10% higher for this market due to higher product liability insurance - the consumer pays in the end for this. The tax payer pays for the cost of the court system occupied by this.

I live in Autralia now where things are moving towards the US mentality of suing for everything. Insurance costs for professional indemnity is going through the roof, but products and facilities are not safer because of this. I prefer the European system by far. In most countries you can suit for negligence -but the "bar" is higher (accidents do happen and we as individuals have to take some responsibility ourselves), the amount of money is capped and frivolous lawsuits can backfire easier. That is a far better and cheaper system for all.

We had a case here in Australia a couple of years ago where a guy got himself drunk at the beach and jumped head first into the water from the shore line and broke his neck. He won a major payout from the city because there were not enough warning signs not to dive into the water from the shore line...

There are too many cases where you can suit even if you act irresponsible and stupid. It is different if you e.g. buy an electronic product and its electrocutes you because it is build in a faulty manner. In this case you should (and can in most countries) be able to suit. It is a question of how you set up the system.

A friend of mine worked for a company that produced medical equipment. They were sued in the US when a patient died in the ER. The company's product was present in the room where the person died, but had not been used on that person. In the end they had to pay compensation anyway.....

The US legal system has gone overboard. But this is not really the best place to have a long discussion on over litigious societys.

There's a spin off thread here: /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=708563;#708563

Post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.... that is easily the most heartless thing i have ever heard anyone say in my life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Agreed. Not only that, but I'm shocked at who it came from. I've never seen such an exhibition of bad taste.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bad taste is defined by the actions of the litigants against Rod, and I can't bring myself to buy into the sympathy angle used to make their case.

Some years back a friend of mine was killed by being in a flight operation area without prior coordination with the pilot. The bottom line was that he fucked up and died, and the pilot and the mother of the deceased hugged each other in tears at the funeral. There was no blamestorming or litigation.

In this case it is every bit as clear that it was a case of death by misadventure, where the deceased was in an area devoted to aircraft operations and died as a result. It's a shame and all that, but the bottom line is that he had no business whatsoever being where he was when he was struck.

By the time I was done searching for his arm (we never did find it - most likely a coyote made off with it) I didn't have much sympathy for his misfortune, and seeing what it did to the staff of the helicopter operation did away with my last vestiges of concern.

If the posts by his brother in law shortly thereafter had demonstrated acceptance of the full responsibility he took by going where he was forbidden by law to go (check the regs), I might have felt a modicum of sympathy. There was, however, a public exercise of denial of the first order, and I am not okay with that.

That it has come to the point of civil action is nothing short of evil, and defense of the decision to litigate in this case is as repugnant as would be someone trying to explain why they think rape is really not so bad.

Anyone who thinks that any good can come of the suit is misinformed. No "truth" will come out as a result, and only further destruction can ensue.

The result of Tim's actions was unintended but predictable; the civil action being pursued now is purely mercenary and without any saving graces.

If his memory is to be honored, it should not by by engaging in despicable actions in his name and thus befouling it.


BSBD,

Winsor


I am not about to engage in a character debate with you [deleted]. What you clearly fail to understand that Tim is not and was not the only indivdual present at the accident. Why are you so helll-bent on attacking in individual that is not here to defend his reputation. Or that your style? Granted, if Tim had not been standing there, it would not have happened. In addition, had Rod initiated a right hand turn a split second later it would not have happened either. Lets face it. You have your OPINIONS and I have my VIDEO. Unless you have FACTS that can be substantiated please refrain from posting anymore of your [deleted] replies.

Edited for personal attacks. Again.

I'm all for brutal honesty, I'm just really surprised at the value you put on this person's life. I can even understand having no sympathy - what I can't understand is that fact that you would wish the helicopter back before this man's life. Would you make the same statemnet about Dwain? Wish that railing he affected and those people he traumatized be made whole rather than have him alive?

Back to the issue at hand - does anyone agree that if the story of him talking to Rod and getting the ok to stand there is true - should someone be held legally responsible? Everyone is assuming he's lying, and that this guy sprung out of the corn and surprised him. I don't really know what version is true, I wasn't there. The 'jumping out of the corn' bit is starting to seem a little hookey to me though.

Granted, if Tim had not been standing there, it would not have happened

Unless you have FACTS that can be substantiated please refrain from posting