Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Thanks, Chuck.  I'm going to use that in my announcements of future

fly-ins at my farm.



"Note:  No fire and no rescue services will be available and none should be

 	  Quote: 	
		   expected.  If, while attending this flyin, you intend to crash and burn,

 please arrange for your own fire and rescue services because we have none.

 If this arrangement is not satisfactory, please stay away and take your

 crash somewhere else."


	


  I love it.



-Stormy

On 2/17/07, Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 Dale,

 From the briefs Bob posted, apparently, one of the reasons for finding

 against the defendants was the lack of competence on the part of the Rescue

 Team (i.e. tennis shoes, clothes not at the ready, wrong hose hookup, water

 instead of foam).  The implication was that the EAA was responsible for this

 less than sterling performance by the Rescue Squad.



 The question is "what standard is the EAA (or any flyin manager) supposed to

 hold a Rescue Squad" such that it protects against claims of incompetence?

 The best available in the local area?  The best available anywhere?  Is the

 EAA supposed to make the Volunteer Fire Department run demonstration tests

 for them to show competence?  Is the EAA to require 5 practice drills on the

 part of fire and rescue squad?  And what standard is used to measure

 competence?  Is 45 second response okay, but 44 second is not?  The local

 Volunteer Fire Department is the best available (even if not very good),

 does that mean the EAA is required to contract with a Hook-n-Ladder fire

 crew from Washington, Dulles and have them travel 5,000 miles to be at the

 ready because they are better, or the best available?



 All of these questions, some silly, some unanswerable, go to the issue of

 what duty the EAA and Flyin Sponsors had, if any, to the guest flyers beyond

 just having the local good-guy with some fire equipment available.  If the

 guest pilots had an unspoken, unwritten, unpublished expectation that there

 would be fire-n-rescue with a high level of competence available, then

 perhaps future flyin hosts should publish on their web page and fliers:



 "Note:  No fire and no rescue services will be available and none should be

 expected.  If, while attending this flyin, you intend to crash and burn,

 please arrange for your own fire and rescue services because we have none.

 If this arrangement is not satisfactory, please stay away and take your

 crash somewhere else."



 Is a warning like this stupid?  Probably, but then again, perhaps its also

 prudent.  It would certainly have presented the claimants in this litigation

 with a higher level of proof.



 Chuck Jensen

  Dale Ensing  wrote.....



 The fire fighters were volunteers......correct? Do we hold volunteers to the

 same standards as professionals? The airpark we live in is protected by a

 volunteer fire department. While I hope they can do as well as the

 professionals, I do not expect the same.  It was my choice to take that

 risk.

 If the fire department didn't use their training and execute properly for

 the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can

 you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not using

 their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same

 thing?  Pick a side.



 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

 href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

lors01(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:53 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->   

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  SNIP< 

If  the fire department didn't use their training and execute properly for the  accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can you  say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not using  their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same  thing?  Pick a side. (emphasis added) 
	


  

  

Gee, thought I had made my choice  obvious.   Others have already pointed out this absurdity but it  was not the fire department who had to pay. It was the lawyers' usual  victims  (deepest pockets) that they went after.  The list of other  absurdities in this case could fill a book but I think enough have already  been aired to 'Pick a side'.  

  

Thanks to Chuck for that wonderful disclaimer.  With your  permission, I'll include that in invitations to all future fly-ins here at Shady  Bend. 

  

Tracy Crook 

  

Do not archive 

  

  

 

 [quote]       	  Quote: 	
		            



	
http://www.matronics.nbsp;              available via    title=http://forums.matronics.com/    href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

_-===================================





[b]

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

 	  Quote: 	
		  Others' assertions that we need to know the minutiae of the case in order to fully understand the nuanced but higher wisdom of a jury acting in a frivolous suit against those who tried to help is nonsense.  	




I guess this is directed to me as I made the nonsensical suggestion that people read the facts surrounding the case before spouting one way or another. Apparently that concept doesn't work for you, and that's fine. But it works for me.  To me, it's the difference between knowing what I'm talking about and not knowing what I'm talking about.



To me -- and again, I'm not saying that has to be anyone else's modus operandi -- if you don't know the facts, you run the risk of looking  ignorant.



One doesn't need to know nuance -- and of course I NEVER suggested folks needed to know nuance -- one just needs to be interested in having more knowledge. 



There are knowledgeable people. And there are ignorant people. Sometimes they end up with the same conclusions. But one came about it accidentally. One came about it intelligently.  What route people take to reach the conclusion they reached is up to them. I like mine just fine and so I wouldn't advise waiting for me to apologize for it.



Do not archive

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Jeffery,  

   

You are missing something very real in this case.  The experts were the City of Arlington and they got excused.  Instead the EAA and NWEAA are being made to answer for it.  This is entirely wrong in spite of the whole case being riddled with crap.  If the experts are supposed to be help to a standard of knowing what they are doing and we then excuse them from any liability for not then what is their motive to better their actions?  Unfortunately when you sue the City, you sue us and is the reason they get excused.  Maybe that shouldn’t be.  

   

Tim  

Do Not Archive  

           

  

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffery J. Morgan

 Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:13 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

  

   

Professionally trained folks are not just people passing by and we expect a level of training, performance, and knowledge from them when responding. I expect that police officer knows how to aim and fire his gun. I expect the paramedic to know the drugs he is using and what their affect will be. I expect that pilot of my airline plane to know how to navigate and use the systems available to him. I hold all of them to a standard that is very different then just someone trying help.   To suggest that because the fire department showed up, that is all that they need to do is ridiculous!  I cannot believe that I even read that in this group.   

   

If the fire department didn’t use their training and execute properly for the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same thing?  Pick a side.  

   

Everyone is upset at what happened, but the family has a right to ask the questions as to what happened.  Hundreds of years ago it was just the workers fault that they stuck their hand into the machines. Shouldn’t have had it there in the first place, right?  OSHA has made the work place safer and helped many people. That occurred by people questioning the experts.  There are examples all over the world around us.  

   

Now,  I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with the results, but will say that the idea that experts are excused is a bunch of bologna.  They should do it better, thus the expert title.  

   

   

       

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vanremog(at)aol.com

 Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:55 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

  

  

       

In a message dated 2/16/2007 9:38:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, lors01(at)msn.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		    

Wouldn't matter to me if he was dancing a jig and reciting the Gettysburg address while burning to death.  (am I going to hell for that?)  People around him did their personal best to save him but he died anyway.  If mistakes were made, well too bad, he obviously made the first and primary mistake that caused his death and others should not have to pay for that fact.  	
  

    

===========================  

    

   

    

I have remained silent on this issue until now, but I have to agree with Tracy's assertion of "any good Samaritan (professional or amateur) doing their level best to help out someone in trouble is absolved of liability".  I want people to help others in need, even if they fail to succeed.  Stuff happens and you can't always put Humpty Dumpty back together again.  This is the sad fact, get over it, but learn from it.  

    

   

    

Others' assertions that we need to know the minutiae of the case in order to fully understand the nuanced but higher wisdom of a jury acting in a frivolous suit against those who tried to help is nonsense.  IMO, the issue should have never come before the court.      

   

    

GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon   Valley, CA)  

  

   	  Quote: 	
		     http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List 	
 	  Quote: 	
		   http://forums.matronics.com 	
 	  Quote: 	
		       	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		   	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2

  

        [quote][b]

Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

In a message dated 2/17/2007 8:45:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  One    doesn't need to know nuance -- and of course I NEVER suggested folks needed to    know nuance -- one just needs to be interested in having more knowledge.    



There are knowledgeable people. And there are ignorant people.    Sometimes they end up with the same conclusions. But one came about it    accidentally. One came about it intelligently.  What route people take to    reach the conclusion they reached is up to them. I like mine just fine and so    I wouldn't advise waiting for me to apologize for it. 	


 

 =============================

  

 It occurs to me that more information is not necessarily enlightening,  just more sound and fury that fails to get us to the point.  Information is  not necessarily knowledge and knowledge is not necessarily wisdom.

  

 All I'm saying is that I believe that the basic precept of the case is  flawed from the get go and that free people pursuing their individual lives may  from time to time get themselves in trouble and when it is basically their  fault, that they find themselves in a situation, second  parties responding cannot guarantee a positive outcome.  I'm advancing  the proposition that that should have doomed it from the start.

  

 The best efforts of the subsequent response in this situation  were insufficient to overcome the initial stupidity (that of crashing  a perfectly good plane) and were not the cause of it.  Maybe if the jury  award were less punitive to the EAA and more substantive to the local agency  (like buying the response team more equipment or additional training), I would  be more okay with it.  We should put things in the proper perspective and  sequence.  I would call it an act of god and move on.

  

 Interesting conjecture though, re the language some would propose  to add to future fly-in waivers and had it in been in effect at Arlington  whether or not it would have protected the EAA in this case.  Does the  knowledge that services will or will not be provided lead one to act more  or less responsibly as an individual?  When I fly into any airport in  the country I have no expectation that they will have emergency response  capability on the premises.  It would be nice, but I would never expect it  and most people would be unwilling to pay for it.

  

 Do not archive.

  

 GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley,  CA)



  [quote][b]

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

GV wrote...

 Interesting conjecture though, re the language some would propose  to add to future fly-in waivers and had it in been in effect at Arlington  whether or not it would have protected the EAA in this case.  Does the  knowledge that services will or will not be provided lead one to act more  or less responsibly as an individual?  When I fly into any airport in  the country I have no expectation that they will have emergency response  capability on the premises.  It would be nice, but I would never expect it  and most people would be unwilling to pay for it.

  

 Do not archive.

  

 The posting I suggested was only partially  facetious.  If a hazard is known to exist, if you "forewarn" a party  of the hazard and advise them to take care or avoid---such as lack of fire and  rescue---and if they subsequently and voluntarily fall victim to the known  hazard; such as flying into the flyin and having an accident, they have limited  recourse.  Yes, they can sue (that only requires a $125 filing fee) but  prevailing in the suit will be very difficult.  It's when there is an  unknown hazard (such as no fire and rescue, or an inept one) and they can  establish some reasonable expectation that there was going to fire and rescue or  there should have been fire and rescue available, that they now have a viable  cause of action....not necessarily a valid one, but a potentially viable  one.

  

 So, a posted warning about no fire and  rescue being available won't protected you from getting sued in case of an  accident, but its unlikely that you'll get sued (and lose) over not having fire  and rescue available.  

  

 As best I could determine, the only basis  that the plaintiff had for the expectation that fire and rescue should be there  is from the NWEAA and EAA's own documents that said a fire and rescue should be  contracted with to provide services.  This stipulation was probably  inserted in the document (which was certainly never read by the pilot) by the  parties trying to appear responsible and safe--but in fact, may have done  themselves in. 

  

 I was going to write that it was best  to "promise nothing and do a little", but even that is probably  wrong.  If you make no promise of rescue services, but then ask the local  fire department (from the nearest town of Ineptville), the plaintiff lawyer will  point out that the very act of asking a fire department to stop by was an  admission by you that you recognized and acknowledged that the flyin being  organized was a dangerous and hazardous event, otherwise you wouldn't have  asked a fire department to stop by.  And, in doing so, you had an  obligation to provide a decent, competent and capable rescue force for this  dangerous and hazardous event that you caused to happen.  As they say, "no  good deed goes unpunished".

  

 Chuck  Jensen

  [quote][b]

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

I think  that's a very good point. I think the message  of the jury is if you contract for services, your obligation and liability  doesn't end when you sign the contract. At that point, as near as I can tell,  the EAA/NWEAA couldn't just say "it's *their* problem now. Apparently the  EAA/NWEAA had an obligation to make sure that the standard of services was  appropriate. I believe there was a section in the testimony where the fly-in  director didn't know what level of services were provided, and I think the court  was saying that she should have. Again, I'm not saying I agree with this; I'm  not saying I don't agree with it. For one thing, I don't live in Washington  State and it's up to the people who do to change the law if this is, indeed, the  case and they find it inappropriate.

  

 I suspect that other states would look at this differently.  Others would look at it similarly. 

  

 To the extent that this makes holding a fly-in impossible,  I don't know. If the court's ruling was as indicated above, and if the failure  of the NWEAA/EAA to check on what fire services were provided, and if the case  hinges on that fact, then some protection, I suppose, from similar suits  could  be found by knowing what services were being provided, knowing the  standard of service that is required,  and then comparing the two and if  something needs to be done to make them square, do it.

  

 Bob

  

 Do not archive.



   From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim  Bryan

Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:58 AM

To:  rv-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Re: pilot's family awarded  $10.5M

 

  

Jeffery, 

  

You are missing  something very real in this case.  The experts were the City of Arlington and they got  excused.  Instead the EAA and NWEAA are being made to answer for it.   This is entirely wrong in spite of the whole case being riddled with crap.   If the experts are supposed to be help to a standard of knowing what they are  doing and we then excuse them from any liability for not then what is their  motive to better their actions?  Unfortunately when you sue the City, you  sue us and is the reason they get excused.  Maybe that shouldn’t  be. 

  

Tim 

Do Not  Archive

    [quote][b]

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

// It occurs to  me that more information is not necessarily enlightening,  

  

 Well, that's a judgment an intelligent  person could only make AFTER he/she gets the information. Not  before.

  

 It's  illogical to say that information you don't even have is worthless; you can't  know that without knowing what that knowledge is in the first place.  And,  really, one has nothing to lose by taking the time to obtain knowledge, unless  one were afraid it would change one's mind. At that point, it's an  emotional response, not necessarily an intelligent  one.

  

 I go back  to Joe Schumacher's constant advice on building RVs. "Take your  time."   There's a reason for that. Sure, you might be late to the  lynching, but at least you don't end up with a barrel-ful of screwed up airplane  parts.

  

 Do not  archive

    [quote][b]

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

morgjj

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

I didn’t miss that, but was merely responding the assertion that trained fire fighters should be excused for merely showing up and trying to put on a show.  Water instead of foam for example is  a more than simple mistake.  Everyone should know from the time they are a little kid not to put water on oil based fire.   I don’t agree at all that they had no culpability in the event at all.   

   

As for training, even volunteer departments are trained. States all have requirements for folks to be on the squad.  We could argue all day that the level is or isn’t different. If I live 15 minutes from the station, I cannot expect a 45 second response to my call. That would be my choice for location of living.  I just cannot keep quiet on the idea that someone would think that the trained folks should be excused…..  

   

   

       

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan

 Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:58 AM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

  

  

   

Jeffery,  

   

You are missing something very real in this case.  The experts were the City of Arlington and they got excused.  Instead the EAA and NWEAA are being made to answer for it.  This is entirely wrong in spite of the whole case being riddled with crap.  If the experts are supposed to be help to a standard of knowing what they are doing and we then excuse them from any liability for not then what is their motive to better their actions?  Unfortunately when you sue the City, you sue us and is the reason they get excused.  Maybe that shouldn’t be.  

   

Tim  

Do Not Archive  

           

  

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffery J. Morgan

 Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:13 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

  

   

Professionally trained folks are not just people passing by and we expect a level of training, performance, and knowledge from them when responding. I expect that police officer knows how to aim and fire his gun. I expect the paramedic to know the drugs he is using and what their affect will be. I expect that pilot of my airline plane to know how to navigate and use the systems available to him. I hold all of them to a standard that is very different then just someone trying help.   To suggest that because the fire department showed up, that is all that they need to do is ridiculous!  I cannot believe that I even read that in this group.   

   

If the fire department didn’t use their training and execute properly for the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same thing?  Pick a side.  

   

Everyone is upset at what happened, but the family has a right to ask the questions as to what happened.  Hundreds of years ago it was just the workers fault that they stuck their hand into the machines. Shouldn’t have had it there in the first place, right?  OSHA has made the work place safer and helped many people. That occurred by people questioning the experts.  There are examples all over the world around us.  

   

Now,  I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with the results, but will say that the idea that experts are excused is a bunch of bologna.  They should do it better, thus the expert title.  

   

   

       

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vanremog(at)aol.com

 Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:55 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

  

  

       

In a message dated 2/16/2007 9:38:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, lors01(at)msn.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		    

Wouldn't matter to me if he was dancing a jig and reciting the Gettysburg address while burning to death.  (am I going to hell for that?)  People around him did their personal best to save him but he died anyway.  If mistakes were made, well too bad, he obviously made the first and primary mistake that caused his death and others should not have to pay for that fact.  	
  

    

===========================  

    

   

    

I have remained silent on this issue until now, but I have to agree with Tracy's assertion of "any good Samaritan (professional or amateur) doing their level best to help out someone in trouble is absolved of liability".  I want people to help others in need, even if they fail to succeed.  Stuff happens and you can't always put Humpty Dumpty back together again.  This is the sad fact, get over it, but learn from it.  

    

   

    

Others' assertions that we need to know the minutiae of the case in order to fully understand the nuanced but higher wisdom of a jury acting in a frivolous suit against those who tried to help is nonsense.  IMO, the issue should have never come before the court.      

   

    

GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)  

  

   	  Quote: 	
		     http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List http://forums.matronics.com     	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2

   	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		    	
0 	  Quote: 	
		    	
1 	  Quote: 	
		    	
2 	  Quote: 	
		    	
3 	  Quote: 	
		    	
4 	  Quote: 	
		    	
5 	  Quote: 	
		    	
6 	  Quote: 	
		    	
7

      [quote][b]

Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

In a message dated 2/17/2007 12:44:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Well, that's a judgment an intelligent    person could only make AFTER he/she gets the information. Not    before.

    

   It's    illogical to say that information you don't even have is    worthless

	


 

 ===================================

  

 Not worthless, just pointless in this case.  

  

 -GV

  [quote][b]

lors01(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  First off let me say that I agree with Bob that knowledge of the facts is  necessary to make an informed decision about these things and  I appreciate the diligent work he put into finding and reporting  this info.  We in experimental aviation are as vulnerable to a Salem witch  hunt as anyone and I hope we get the same consideration of the facts before  someone burns us at the stake.  

  

 But I strongly disagree about the "message" the jury was  sending.  My guess in this case (as in thousands of others) is that they  took the easy way out.  If they had found for the defense they  would have to face the grieving widow and children and send them away with  nothing.  It was apparent that the plaintiff's attorney went to great  lengths to paint this picture in detail.   Some faceless  (to the jury anyway) corporation would have to pay so there was no  down-side for the jury in finding in favor of the plaintiff.

  

 Let's not attribute any phony collective wisdom to this  jury.  Politicians and celebrities can't afford to say what they  often know to be the truth.  Fortunately, I do have that luxury.   John Q. Public is often a cowardly empty headed slavering beast who will  sacrifice reason and truth for any number of petty reasons.  

  

 Tracy Crook

  

 ---

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

// Let's not attribute any phony  collective wisdom to this jury.  Politicians and celebrities  can't afford to say what they often know to be the truth.   Fortunately, I do have that luxury.  John Q. Public is often  a cowardly empty headed slavering beast who will sacrifice reason and truth  for any number of petty reasons.  

   

 Maybe. But part of the problem is the law  itself and while we might be able to ignore elements of it we find rather  distasteful, a jury doesn't have that luxury. That's why I think the  instructions to the jury are so very important.  

  

 do not archive

  

 ---

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

lors01(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->   

 [quote]   



    // Let's not attribute    any phony collective wisdom to this jury.     Politicians and celebrities can't afford to say what they often know    to be the truth.  Fortunately, I do have that luxury.  John Q.    Public is often a cowardly empty headed slavering beast who will    sacrifice reason and truth for any number of petty reasons.  

       

   Maybe. But part of the problem is the law    itself and while we might be able to ignore elements of it we find rather    distasteful, a jury doesn't have that luxury. That's why I think the    instructions to the jury are so very important.  

    

   //  True, I got carried away    from my original point which you bring me back to, which is:     Juries * DO * have that luxury, sometimes for the worse (OJ Simpson)    but they are there for expressly that purpose, to over-ride laws that are    nonsense.   Lawyers will scoff at this assertion but if it were    not so, then the jury system makes no sense at all.  A panel of lawyers    could do the job of 'interpreting the law' far better than a jury.  I    won't bore anyone with the historical evidence for this    opinion. 

    

    

   do not archive

    

   ---

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

 	  lors01(at)msn.com wrote: 	
		    Juries * DO * have that luxury, sometimes for the worse (OJ Simpson)    but they are there for expressly that purpose, to over-ride laws that are    nonsense.   Lawyers will scoff at this assertion but if it were    not so, then the jury system makes no sense at all.  A panel of lawyers    could do the job of 'interpreting the law' far better than a jury.  I    won't bore anyone with the historical evidence for this    opinion. 

    	




Well, as I indicated, I'm not a resident of Washington state so maybe there juries make the laws and decide which ones make sense and which don't. 



To take it a step further, why even have trials at all? Why not just post about 4 sentences on an Internet bulletin board about what the case is about and  have an online survey that determines whether someone is guilty or not?



It sure would also save a lot of time in trying to empanel an impartial jury willing to listen to both side of an argument.



Do not archive

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

panamared5(at)brier.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

At 08:53 PM 2/17/07, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  In a message dated 2/17/2007 12:44:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 

bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net writes:

Well, that's a judgment an intelligent person could only make AFTER he/she 

gets the information. Not before.



It's illogical to say that information you don't even have is worthless



===================================



Not worthless, just pointless in this case.



-GV


	


If I had known in 1994 what I know now five years after I have completed my 

RV, I would not have built it.  On the other hand, 10 years from know, I 

will know, what I don't know now, and my response might be, you bet I made 

the right decision to build the RV.



Intellectuals (which I include myself as one) have a tendency to study a 

situation, or problem to death and never make a decision.  I have learned 

at some point I must stop searching for more information and make a 

decision.  It took me 34 years to decide what airplane to build and when to 

start it.  It took a good friend to get me to start building when he said, 

"Just Do It,  if you don't do it soon you will be too old to fly it."



One could make the point that the Jury did not have sufficient knowledge or 

information to make their decision.  Did they have 25 years of fire 

fighting experience?  Then how could they sit in judgement of 

firefighters?  Did they have 30 years experience as a pilot, or builder, 

then how can they judge a pilot or builder.  Did they ever run an Air show?



One smart person once told me, "you don't need to know the physics of how a 

microwave oven works, to use it.  But, you do need to know how to stop and 

start it."



I doubt any one person alive knows all the facts.  But that did not stop 

the jury from making a decision.  So why should it stop me from having an 

opinion?



Anyway, that is how I see the world.  I understand that others do see it 

differently!

Do Not Archive



Bob

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

//I doubt any one person alive knows all the facts.  But that did not stop the jury from making a decision.  So why should it stop me from having an opinion?



I'm not sure I understand this. What evidence do we have that the jury made a decision without having the facts? It appears they listened to the evidence and even -- according to John's article -- sent numerous questions back to the judge seeking clarification. That indicated to me they were engaged with the facts... Certainly more so than many of the folks on the RV list  who've called them stupid  have been.



I'm not sure, at this point, what folks expected the jury to do?  If the case came down to a question of whether Washington state law allows the EAA to not check to be sure the firefighting services they contracted for were, in fact, provided (and the testimony says it did not), and if Washington state law says that signing a contract doesn't transfer liability away from the EAA, then what exactly is a jury supposed to do if the person running the fly-in testifies that she didn't know what services were being provided?  If we expect the jury to ignore the law that the legislators -- acting as representatives of the voters --  enacted, then aren't we saying to them: ignore the FACT of law? 



I think one of the distressing elements of society today, frankly, is that we assume people who don't share the same opinion we share, are stupid.  To me -- as someone who has covered politics for years -- this is what has led to our polarized society. We are so entrenched with our opinions, that we demonize those who have different opinions.  Pretty soon the merits of a discussion fall victim to some sort of "good vs. evil" ... "smart vs. stupid."



In many ways, life has come to mirror the art of Internet bulletin boards  I'm pretty sure this all comes back to the PC vs. Apple debate. (g)



It's time to move on from this now, and concentrate on convincing me whether I not I should install the canopy release mechanism.(g)



Do not archive

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

lors01(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  

T. Crook wrote:

 

 	  Quote: 	
		     Juries * DO * have that luxury, sometimes for the  worse (OJ Simpson)    but they are there for expressly that  purpose, to over-ride laws that are    nonsense.    Lawyers will scoff at this assertion but if it were    not so,  then the jury system makes no sense at all.  A panel of  lawyers    could do the job of 'interpreting the law' far better  than a jury.  I    won't bore anyone with the historical  evidence for this    opinion. 

      


	




Well, as I indicated, I'm not a resident of Washington state so  maybe there juries make the laws and decide which ones make sense and which  don't. 



To take it a step further, why even have trials at all? Why not  just post about 4 sentences on an Internet bulletin board about what the case is  about and  have an online survey that determines whether someone is guilty  or not?



It sure would also save a lot of time in trying to empanel an  impartial jury willing to listen to both side of an argument.



Do not  archive



--------

Bob Collins



 It is no surprise that you didn't take this seriously (almost no one does)  and that is precisely why we had the profoundly wrong jury  decision that started this thread.  But I'll pretend your  comments were serious and respond that the U.S. Constitution establishes  the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers.  This has nothing  to do with Washington state laws.   To answer meaningfully, you would  have to give a logical reason why the framers of the Constitution wanted a jury  system if it was not as a check on a legal system gone bad.

  

 Tracy Crook  (back from another disgusting day in our court  system)



Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=96068#96068



http://www.matronics.nbsp;              available via  title=http://forums.matronics.com/  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

_-===================================



   [quote][b]

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Bob,



I think the basic problem is that none of us can be convinced that  

the EAA should have been expected to contract with services more  

qualified than the local fire department.  I also don't feel that any  

of us can be convinced that the EAA should be expected to perform  

some sort of quality test on the local services.  You might verify  

they have trucks and personnel and those personnel know how to handle  

gas fires and such, but you don't actually run your own tests to make  

sure the people are in top condition and responsiveness.



I don't think any of us can understand why the EAA is responsible but  

the organization that was on scene providing the so-called faulty  

services was exempt.  The ONLY reason I can imagine this being the  

case is if the plaintiff's lawyers didn't want the local jury to have  

to give an award that was coming out of their taxes.  Fine, move the  

darned trial somewhere, but if there were faulty services, the FIRST  

people to blame are the ones who performed the faulty services.



My expectation when I fly somewhere is that if I have a crash, that  

the nearest available units will respond in a timely and professional  

manner, but I have no expectations that the nearest people will be  

available on field.  I certainly don't expect rescue services to  

actually be in their hot, hot gear around the clock.  And if I die  

because they were too slow, even unprofessionally slow, that's my  

tough luck.  Unless I specifically contracted with the people for  

services they didn't provide, too bad, so sad.  This concept of  

implied responsibility is very distressing.



This case isn't a case of no rescue services available.  It's not  

even a case of whether those rescue services were some shoddy, fly by  

night operation.  It was the local fire department who in virtually  

all cases should be considered "good enough" without further checks.   

If those services were insufficient, it's the local fire department's  

fault, not the EAA's.



I think there's plenty of blame to pass around on this issue, but  

none of it on the EAA.



-J



do not archive

On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Bob Collins wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>



 //I doubt any one person alive knows all the facts.  But that did  

 not stop the jury from making a decision.  So why should it stop me  

 from having an opinion?



 I'm not sure I understand this. What evidence do we have that the  

 jury made a decision without having the facts? It appears they  

 listened to the evidence and even -- according to John's article --  

 sent numerous questions back to the judge seeking clarification.  

 That indicated to me they were engaged with the facts... Certainly  

 more so than many of the folks on the RV list  who've called them  

 stupid  have been.



 I'm not sure, at this point, what folks expected the jury to do?   

 If the case came down to a question of whether Washington state law  

 allows the EAA to not check to be sure the firefighting services  

 they contracted for were, in fact, provided (and the testimony says  

 it did not), and if Washington state law says that signing a  

 contract doesn't transfer liability away from the EAA, then what  

 exactly is a jury supposed to do if the person running the fly-in  

 testifies that she didn't know what services were being provided?   

 If we expect the jury to ignore the law that the legislators --  

 acting as representatives of the voters --  enacted, then aren't we  

 saying to them: ignore the FACT of law?



 I think one of the distressing elements of society today, frankly,  

 is that we assume people who don't share the same opinion we share,  

 are stupid.  To me -- as someone who has covered politics for years  

 -- this is what has led to our polarized society. We are so  

 entrenched with our opinions, that we demonize those who have  

 different opinions.  Pretty soon the merits of a discussion fall  

 victim to some sort of "good vs. evil" ... "smart vs. stupid."



 In many ways, life has come to mirror the art of Internet bulletin  

 boards  I'm pretty sure this all comes back to the PC vs. Apple  

 debate. (g)



 It's time to move on from this now, and concentrate on convincing  

 me whether I not I should install the canopy release mechanism.(g)



 Do not archive



 --------

 Bob Collins

 St. Paul, Minn.

 RV Builder's Hotline (free!)

 http://rvhotline.expercraft.com





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=96087#96087

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

[quote="lors01(at)msn.com"]To answer meaningfully, you would  have to give a logical reason why the framers of the Constitution wanted a jury  system if it was not as a check on a legal system gone bad.

  

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=96068#96068



The founding fathers  did nothing to the state of Washington as to how its laws would be formulated, followed, and changed.  That is the state's obligation.



The jury system was part of an entire system of governance enacted by tthe Founding Fathers. To say that the jury system exists because the Founding Fathers knew the rest of the system they devised had already "gone bad" is a questionable conclusion. 



What the Founding Father didn't particularly care for,one could argue, is the Chamber of Star, in which arbitrary power was wielded. The same kind of power, by the way, that you suggest juries should have in determining -- in secret -- what laws of the state of Washington they should be interested in observing on any particular day.



Defintely do not archive

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

On the flip side of this.. Had the EAA performed those tests and the service

still failed they would certainly have been held responsible and maybe

rightfully so.  When you take that extra step you also become extra

responsible or liable.  EAA had every right to expect the fire rescue team

to be knowledgeable in their field.  Yes I realize they were volunteers, but

they don't just pull people off the street who know nothing about fires.



I find it unfortunate the responders were immune to the lawsuit but others

in the field were allowed to come testify to what a bad job they did.  Kind

of got their cake and ate it too.

Tim

Do Not Archive



[quote] --

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 7 of 8

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum