jaav

Jeeezz...My son's friend missed the landing field and drove a plane through the back window of my car...I cut my finger cleaning the glass...Do I sue his parents or do I sue myself because I parked my car in that spot...Maybe I should sue Met office for not informing of a wind change so He wouldnt miss the landing zone...

NoI just laughed at it and got on with life....PPL have to take responsability for thier own actions....Not every thing can be factored in every flight, Murphy happens....

Silent-AV8R

None of us actually know the facts of the case. This entire thread has been fed by the baseless assumptions of people who just want one more thing to go on about. I have no idea what happened that day, what has happened since, or what is going to happen. And neither does anyone else in this forum.

Benoît

"The suit says Miller 'did not have much experience' in flying model planes, and that the AMA 'was negligent when it allowed Mr. Miler to fly his aircraft near spectators.'"

Generally participants in an activity accept the inherent risks of that activity. There is also some acceptance by spectators, but they do not accept the same level as participants.

If a race car driver losses control of his car, hits the wall and dies, it is unlikely that the owner of the track or the race organizer would be held liable, unless they had failed in their obligation to provide a safe venue for the event.

However, if a piece of the car flew over the wall and injured a spectator or did not fly over the wall but injured someone in the pit area, it would in some circumstances be possible to mount a successful suit.

If the driver were lacking experience, for example, he could successfully sued and if the organizer knew he lacked experience but let him drive anyway, the organizer could also be successfully sued.

If an insurer (who is answerable to his insured, not to a claimant) refuses to pay or does not pay what the claimant can show to be actual damages, the claimaint has not alternative but to sue the participant and the organizer. If the claimant wins, the participant and organizer can then sue their insurers if the insurer has not already paid the maximum indemnity under the policy.

The questions at trial (which no one in this discussion can possibly answer now) are whether or not the pilot had sufficient experience, whether or not the organizer has any liability and whether or not the plaintiff level of inherent risk given the nature of the event and his status at the event lowers or negates the plaintiff's recourse.

SPLIT S

KE,

I didn't say anything about the pilots responsibility or not. And certainly he should "man up" and take that responsibility on. My point is sueing the AMA for negligence because of a particular pilots skill level. No one knows what happened, certainly none of us, so whether his "skills" had anything to do with it remains to be seen.

Anyone can join the AMA, whether you fly or not and there is no "test" involved. Where does all of this end? What about the guy who signs off on a turbine waiver. New waiver holder is a great pilot but a while down the road he has a bad day and hurts himself or someone else. Chase the guy down who signed him off? Ever heard of sueing the DMV because someone was involved in an accident? Don't think so. Their driving "skill" levels must be bad. Find the guy who gave him a passing grade.

Anyone who gets injured, in this case this lady, is a very unfortunate occurance. I just don't agree with chasing down the deepest pockets you can find all in the name of "justice".

Everyone deserves their day in court, but dragging everyone you can possibly point a finger at in with you in my opinion is just plain wrong. It's a wonder that any of us even get out of bed in the morning anymore, who may have it in for you today?

I hope the lady fully recovers, the husband gets his whatever he lost back and the pilot can one day fly again.

KidEpoxy

Interesting that you bring up the DMV and its liability for letting folks drive on the streets,
as a simile to the AMA's liability to letting folks fly at AMA sanctioned events.

Sure we dont see the DMV getting its feet held to the fire for drivers it lets drive,
because we can point to the due diligence of actually denying a ton of folks permission to drive,
by qualifying standards and actual written AND performance testing.
The DMV doesnt rely on just having folks sign a paper saying "Me Drive Good".
We dont see the DMV just handing out licenses to anyone that happens to send $58 to them from any dubious internet account with a prepaid visa

However, perhaps the lawsuit we see now
is referring to the way that AMA controls who may and maynot fly at their sanctioned events (and on AMA property no less).
The folks that AMA lets fly at AMA events are anyone that pays $58
without any kind of due diligence that the DMV shows... Me Fly Good

I believe you hit the nail on the head with your DMV vs AMA reference.
The DMV dont get sued cause the DMV does a lot to deny bad drivers licenses, and does a lot of denying,
while the AMA is getting sued cause they seem to do not much at all to stop bad flyers that pay the $58.
Dont you think that is what the current suit is trying to say?

bradpaul

Now I have seen it all.......... the kid advocating for the AMA to require some sort of test and license to fly.

Brad

GerKonig

You have to admit that if only people that know what they are talking about, and have all he facts at hand would be allowed to post, 90% of the garbage posted would have to be deleted:-) Wrong assumptions, baseless suppositions, and incomplete news are king here:-)

Gerry

SPLIT S

You just hung yourself. My analogy was to "licensed" drivers. You wouldn't be driving unless you had one, right? In other words, in your world once licensed to do anything that fact lets the person or entity who issued the license off the hook, right? Because you took a test - really? Everyone on the road is a "good" and "skillful" driver because they took a written and behind the wheel test? Are you really serious?

And by "due diligence", all you have to do is drive 20 or 30 miles on any freeway in the country to see the flaw in your argument. "Me drive good" is shot full of holes every day of the week. Didn't you ever wonder how they got behind the wheel in the first place?

My point, again, is that the chain of people or organizations involved is only limited by the greed of those involved. At some point , sometimes, it becomes just about how much can I get and who is going to give it to me. Sometimes things just happen. If we are going to go down that road than why would anyone, anyone, vouch for someone else if it means that you too can be held accountable in case something should go wrong - even years down the road. That is what I originally had meant by "taking responsibilty". I don't know how much more clear I can make it.

Since when is "at AMA santioned events" any kind of limit to culpability. What is the difference from an "event" to Sunday flying?

Be careful what you wish for sir.

KidEpoxy

no, I may have just hung the guys suing AMA,
but since they aint me and I am just trying to understand where they are coming from,
it is THEY that I may have hung.

Muncie dont have a rule prohibiting non-AMA members from flying at AMA chartered club's fields
(Note: they do have a rule about who may join said clubs though)
Muncie does have a rule as to who may enter sanctioned events.
As such:
The individual clubs decide who flys at their fields,
while it is Muncie that decides who may fly in sanctioned events

If an unqualified person flies it is on Muncie for letting it happen when it is Muncie that decides who flies,
is probably the rationale behind the guys are suing muncie,
just as we see all kinds of other landowners getting dragged into court for allowing others to do things on their land.


Back to the DMV:
If you are contending that all the actions of the DMV are still below acceptable to avoid liability,
then what are you saying about AMA doing not even as much as what DMV does?
That DMV is substandard and AMA is subberstandard?


For how many decades did AMA issue cards to its members with the word License on it?
How can we keep a straight face when we tell the FAA we are self regulating,
when the common cry in this thread is that Muncie is powerless over its members
and is not accountable for its rules (or lack thereof)




dont believe BradPaul's lies

KidEpoxy

fat fallacy

point to where I said that is what we should do,
or we need to do,
or I would like them to do


No, what I did was present my theory as to the motivations of them folks suing AMA.
Just because I know WHY hitler invaded poland dont mean I support that action or find that reason to justify it.

SPLIT S

KE, you put so many words in my mouth I choke.

"If you are contending that all the actions of the DMV are still below the acceptable levels to avoid liability". Where the h#$l did I say that? They have a system in place and still there are way too many out there that I would never - ever - take a ride with. Written test or not. That's just life. That's why the DMV doesn't get sued. YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID. YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE INTELLIGENCE. No matter how much the rest of us want it.

You are saying that if there were a licensing system in effect then the AMA would not be on the hook, said system being proof that said pilot is competent. That is your argument, is it not? Is that what you really want? Take "toy airplanes" as you say and escalate them to the same standards as semi-trucks. Or full scale aircraft? How the heck is the 12 year old kid ever going to get a chance to fly? And who would train him? In your world who would want to? Certified AMA instructors? Talk about killing our "toy airplane" hobby.

We do police ourselves, and very well at that. Accidents that make headlines are extremly few and far between. Because we take pride in what we can do, how we help one another, and how we step in when we see trouble. Muncie isn't the AMA, we are. If someone at my field isn't up to snuff, he gets a spotter at least or buddy box until we find him or her good to go. In our opinion. That is self policing and something that has been done for many, many years all over with great success. But geez, people have their way and they are coming after "who said he was ok?"

I'm sorry I ever posted on this. You seem to want more regulation, more rules when the system has worked for many, many decades. Lawsuits like this can set precedents that someday we all may have so many hoops to jump through just to enjoy a Sunday flying our "toy airplanes" that it just may make our hobby obsolete. Too much liabilty, too much to lose. People used to try and do what is right in their heart, but now as time goes by it is more about covering your a#$. That's progress, hope we can all sleep better at night.

tinner1

Split,
You almost got it right about what "some people" want. They don't want any of what you suggest, just what THEY suggest, and it's ALWAYS what is wrong with the AMA. ALL other opinions are wrong and not worthy....at least in THEIR minds.

blueapplepaste

My Feedback: (5)

Its completely silly and foolish to start declaring if this case has no merit without knowing all of the facts. Case in point are people commenting on the McDonald's case. It wasn't just some woman spilling some coffee and getting a huge settlement. She required multiple operations and McDonald's knew of the problem with their coffee being too hot. They were negligent. Was her settlement too large? I don't know, maybe. But McDonald's was definitely at fault.

Now in this case, its quite possible she just has a little bruise and they're looking for a quick buck. Its also possible she'll have to have her arm reconstructed and the pilot flew with equipment he knew to be faulty, or something like that.

Point is, we don't have all of the facts. So lets not rush to judgement one way or the other.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

And yet the National Coffee Association still recommends that coffee be brewed at the very temperature that the coffee that scalded Stella was brewed at. Don't believe everything you read, especially when it was written by trial lawyers trying to keep up what's left of their image

http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

I agree that we don't know enough about the AMA case to make judgements about it (though if the theory is really that the AMA has a duty to give a skills test to everyone who flies at Muncie, it seems pretty far-fetched.) But the McDonald's case was just nutty.

jairoblaster

My Feedback: (18)

Has anyone got an address on this guy yet, I would recomend finding where he lives and everyone that is close enough to stop by and say Hi in there own special way. There is no way that anyone in my club would get away with this with out being completely exersized from the community, and alienated from the club. I hope he gets every cent comming to him, and all the attention that he wanted. As for his wife, why was she even in the pits. its my understanding that she is at fault for being in the pits. So If I was the guy whos plane got smashed I would be looking at her to pay to fix the plane and all my time invested, and the sentemental value of it, not to mention the shock of the whole situation. I might not ever be able to sleep at night again. Im just saying. By the way This guy looks just like one of the kids that got picked on all the time, and Im guessing still does, looks like he is trying to sniff his upper lip, what a winner.

jairoblaster

My Feedback: (18)

Even if she has to get her arm reconstrucked she had to know that the danger is there, and if you dont then you are a idiot. You should know that physics apply here 8 lbs airplane@ 100mph= posible decapitation. Use your head. Its not like this was just some lady walking in the park and bam!!!! hit by some ones plane. She was there spectating or participating in some fashion (as She was in the pits) So you can not convince anyone that we dont know the facts, because wether or not we know the facts, AMA should not have to pay up for this, and the fact that the guy is sueing for the lack of sex just proves the fact that they are money grubbing.

Bill G

I wish I could agree. Our judges these days do whatever they want, however.


Sounds like a fair lawsuit. She wasn't supposed to be in the pits, and should pay for the plane that she destroyed.

Bill

aberry1917

Yes is agree withthe comparison of the Mcdonalds incident to thi s, but from memeory in school when it happenedwas the lady was burned by coffee she purchased in the drive through. She was awarded all coffee sales for one day workd wide which i believe 5.1 million bucks. The part that got Mcdonalds was their company policy states the coffee cannot be but what i think aroun 175degrees and this was coming from a faulty pot which was almost boiling.

ANyway the point i am trying to make is the case was won for Mcdonalds failure to follow their own policy. In this case if the court finds the club or AMA failed to follow their own policy even though it may be the victims fault then teh AMA could lose bid which is sad.

I believe that anytime you go anywhere be it a bar, race,even church you automatically asume a certain risk. i do believe that the AMA should do the respectred thing and allow insurance to pay the ladies medical bills , but that shoudl be it in my opinion.

Andy

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

sadly we know anyone can file a lawsuit for whatever reason.hot coffee or being a spectator.not every frivilous suit wins either.while we laugh and tease people who do this such suits will always happen this time AMA maybe you next time.I am sure AMA has corporate liability insurance and property and casualty insurance just as any business or property owner does.

tripleup05

If yall think we have it bad as model aviators, try being a dirtbike rider. I have a good bit of property and would love for folks to come ride with me. But will I ever invite someone over other than a close relative? Nope, not a chancee. Unfortunately.

KidEpoxy

Split
really?
REALLY??
You are so distraught over it you decide to do it to me?
You are the one that said you wanted folks to take responsibility for what they do,
but then try to twist out of having AMA take responsibility for what they do / neglect to do.
Show me where I said I wanted more regulation.
Show me where I said I wanted more rules.
Heck, show me what I said that you believe even seems like I want more rules.


Over and over I attributed all that to the folks that filed suit and what their motives might be.
Yet you guys just want to shoot the messenger
and repeatedly accuse me of saying/wanting it even though I never made any comment to that end.

Do you know why the south seceded?
Does knowing that make you pro-slavery?
Maybe you are capable of knowing the reasons folks did what they did without condoning what they did or even agreeing with their reasons. Were you taught the reasoning Japan had for attacking Pearl? Does that make you pro- pearl harbor attack? Just because I can figure out what other folks might be thinking dont me I agree with what they think.

KidEpoxy

jairo
Pits?
Who said she was in the pits?
What I read said she fell on a plane, not where she fell.
Guess you dont really care where she fell,
cause that would be a fact and you say you've already judged her guilty regardless of the facts


Heck, one time I stepped on my own plane while loading up my car,
that dont mean I parked in the pits

jairoblaster

My Feedback: (18)

You know I got to thinking about this just a little bit, And I came to a conclution....... Its this very mind set that is causing our country to go down the tubes. Whats the guys name??? Either way Way to go buddy.. You are everything that I am aginst. I would like to formally lodge a motion to ban him from all participation on Groups, Cirkus,Universe,Ebay, and any other site that allows us to block a user. We need to find out what he posts under and take that action. Ill work on finding it.

jairoblaster

My Feedback: (18)

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/...yssey=obinsite
You are right I dont know for sure that she was in the pits, Im making an asumption, but I can do that fairly safely... you think the parkinglots are stacked with planes. At my field we put ours in the pits, or they are in the truck or trailer. And I would say that that is a fair asumption that you have made that I have judged her guilty.
Thats the risk you take when you go to the field to play with toy planes.
Im not trying to be a total ***** here, Im just saying if it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, its probly a fish..... but I guess it could be a horse. There needs to be more people the assume that the sue happy people are in the wrong and condem them for it, so that it is not taken so lightly, and mabey it will cut down on the frivelless lawsuits blowing around.

50+AirYears

As far as our court system, a number of years ago on a talk show (In)famous lawyer Melvin Beli stated a fact: Our Legal System is a system of Law, not of justice. It is basically a system of lawyers for the defendant and plaintif presenting arguments in front of a jury and/or judge, with the award going to whichever side presents the most convincing argument based on facts, interpretation of facts, careful editing of facts, presentation of facts, applicable laws, and where available, legal precedent. According to his statements, one of the most important parts of a jury trial is jury seleotion, Each attorney is fighting to seat a certain type of personality most likely to give highest consideration to his presentation.

Juries often by their makeup tend to take an emotional approach rather than factual approach. According to Beli, a defense attorney, especially one who doubts the validity of his client's case, wants to load the jury with certain types - according to his statements, he wants housewives, businessmen, and even doctors, and other types who can be easily swayed by emotional appeal, especially when the client can show actual serious injuries. Only if the attorney is certain of his case does he want jurists who are trained for analytical thinking, like engineers and scientists.

I believe it has been stated previously in this thread that many court awards are significantly reduced or even thrown out during the appeals process. The McD coffee case was presented as an example. According to a couple of people I know who have connection with the court system,this in fact does happen in more than 50% of these jury cases, and somewhat less when only a judge is involved. Less of an emotional response?.

Also, the press releases rarely present facts with a high degree of accuracy or completeness. I remember a widely reported eppisode some years ago. There were very many showings from a video of this man on the ground with Taser wires sticking out of him, and apparently several Police officers responding violently. Several years later, PBS obtained ran the whole video, which showed the subject attacking the police officers, who responded with the first Taser, which had little effect, followed by the second Taser, which still needed physical action on the part of the Police to bring the subject to the ground. A whole different situation.

Right now, I don't see enough facts to even form a full understanding or substantive opinion of this Muncie episode, other than a man and his wife traveled something like 250 miles to an AMA Sanctioned event. At this event, the wife was struck by an RC glider, and fell onto another plane. She allegedly sustained injuries at least to a shoulder. The husband apparently is himself an AMA member. They have initiated a law suit against apparently AMA and the pilot of the plane. To me, at this point in time, anything else is sheer speculation.

I've been involved with liability issues at my last employment. One in particular covers a wide coverage of this kind of situation. We were not originally involved. The three defendents (3 companies, customers of ours) brought us in. Why? The original case was set up to divide a multimillion dollar settlement among 3 defendants. By bringing us in at that stage as a 4th defendant, the amount was fixed, but now divided among 4 defendants. I went to the plaintiff's laboratory to verify the tests run which suggested a failure in our product. Our team was me, an engineering manager, and a couple of our lawyers. After about 6 hours, the plaintiffs lab engineers had to admit that our device worked perfectly, met all requirements, and could not have contributed to the accident, which killed 2 people and injured a number of others. 6 months later, our department monthly report stated that we were dropped from the case after paying a $50000 out of court settlement. If we were innocent, why'd we pay so much? Why were we involved? The original case was for something like 4 million divided among 3 defendants. By bringing us in by those three companies, the amount was now divided among 4 companies. When we bought out, the award was now reduced by our share. The amount was now 3 million divided by 3 defendants. Why'd we settle out of court? One, we kept our name out of the press. We also avoided the legal costs of going to court, which would have probably been close to a half million. A number of kids lost their grandparents. In a jury trial, so even though we had Zero fault, we'probably have have lost a very emotional case, then been obligated to pursue the appeals process, for even higher expenses. $50K plus the cost of our team to travel to the lab,plus other expenses involved in an out of court settlement, was getting off CHEAP! That's the kind of legal system we have, the end result of 4500 years or so of development, the specific peak of human intellectual development in law.

The suit will be decided based partly on what we've read here, but largely based on things submittted in court we'll probably never hear of, unless we attend the trial If the plaintffs win, it'll proably be carried in most of the news services. If they loose, we'll probably only hear about it through the AMA an the Model Aviation magazines. And the defendants get reductions or get overturned in the appeals process,we'll probably never hear of it.

This country has a very interesting legal system for Tort Law. Intellegnce, common sense, ethics, morals, and even justice basically are pretty much irrelavent.