Tom,

So just to make sure I understand; every manufacturer should include enough directions for anything which is dangerous for all situations is your position. If that is true, give me three products and I am positive I can find a way to make them dangerous which are not covered by the instructions.
The core foundation of the case was the manufacturer has a liability because the pilot did not know what he was doing and therefore it is the manufacturers responsibility to make sure he does. This advocates people have no personal responsibility for the correct and proper use of what he/she buys. To me; making the manufacturer liable for the stupidity -- sorry responsibilities -- of the consumer is a dangerous and slippery slope that our legal system has slid way to far down and keeps pushing the limits on (why do I need a disclaimer that coffee is hot and may burn me?). This is why there are major calls for tort reform in the USA by many people who are not lawyers.
Tim[/quote]

Tim, a reasonable argument for sure. I have not read the appellate decision yet and will do so before I comment further. Let's read it. It isn't that long.

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/cur ... 2-0718.pdf

In my business ... (debt collector) frivolous lawsuits are like cloudy days ... many are filed each month. There is also a statute that provides for the defendant (me) to pay for all legal fees of the plaintiff if the debt collector can be proven wrong in any teeny tiny way. For instance ... one word missed during a miranda warning. Or ... a cousin overhearing the debtor listening to a voicemail message left by the debt collector. (that's right ... it becomes our fault).

I now employ 160 people in the Philippines who earn less than 1/3 of their American counterparts. This gives me the extra margin I need to pay for the piles of regulation, taxes and frivolous lawsuits.

I intend to employ thousands in the Philippines as my taxes increase, regulation increases and of course, frivolous lawsuits increase.

It's a bit of a vicious circle. But for those of you who are going out of business ... or are on the edge as our government continues to tighten the noose around your neck, it's an option.

My guess is that many of the people I am NOT hiring in the USA anymore are voting for the big government solution that is going to keep them unemployed.

Tom, Saul is a character from the TV show "Breaking Bad." It isn't a real ad, but its believability is disturbing.

Ha, a sad state of affairs. I thought it was an actual ad.

But those I googled in 15 seconds were real.

OSH for me in less than a week!

Tom,

It was not a long read. But just look at the examples given about the written instructions. An electric heater company is liable because they did not put a warning on it to not use it in a mobile home. Can I say duh? An electric heater is hot, It can make things catch on fire. No sh** yet the heater company lost the suit? WTF? When it comes to tort law, the more examples of stupidity I read the more I want the country to go back to buyer beware and keep the courts, government and whole we must protect everyone from getting hurt mentality away from me. (Yes this is an extreme position, some regulation -- e.g. car bumper requirements, warranties -- is good but it has gone way to far the other direction)

Tim

I used to love the "failure to warn" cases in law school. Tom and others may remember the one involving the "Lithe Line," which was nothing more than a giant rubber band that attached to the victim's foot. She laid down on her back on the floor, attached the Lithe Line to her foot, pulled the other end tight in her hands and began to raise and lower her leg up and down, whereupon the Lithe Line slipped off her foot and popped her in the snout. With a fractured nose she ran to a lawyer who sued Lithe Line, Inc. for failing to warn that a giant rubber band might actually have elastic properties. As I recall, the court ruled against her, finding that the danger was open and obvious. Torts are fun.

Ironic: Businesses leaving the country with jobs in whole or in part because of a loser pays system.

I am not apologist for my profession and I am pleased with the Cirrus verdict, not only because it was the right decision, but because GA is suffering and, frankly, we don't need this kind of publicity or expense.

With regard to the chorus of folks who take joy an blaming attorneys for, well, just about everything, the fact is many manufacturers place products into the stream of commerce that have serious and sometime fatal deficiencies, including aircraft manufacturers. They sometimes make bad/stupid decision too - often times b/c of perceived financial pressures. I have seen seriously dangerous multimillion dollars products put into the marketplace for the want of an additional $100.00 in manufacturing cost.

For every case or claim that is silly and may have had silly results, I can show you 100 that were meritorious.

Product safety improves over time. It does so for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is because of competition, sometimes it's government regulation and many times it is because someone sued and the the lawyer took the financial - sometimes formidable - risk of the case.

Many of the safety features that we today take for granted were the result of not competition or some brilliant bureaucrat, but because a human being got injured or killed and an attorney took the manufacturer to task. Seatbelt, airbags, and child proof caps are three (3) examples that come to mind. There are millions of other products too that have killed or maimed and that were ultimately improved or rendered benign b/c of lawsuits.

Malign products liability lawyers, that is your right. I pray that you never need one.

But, if you think government or good intentions of a manufacturer will save you from, or compensate you after, the unthinkable, it just ain't so.

Loser pays doesn't work for lawyers. It works great for people since lawsuits would drop tremendously. People would not sue unless they were very sure they were in the right.

"Cirrus should have provided training on how to use the airplane’s autopilot to fly safely in such a circumstance." Heck that's just as good as an Instrument Rating. I wasted my money getting mine, I should've just had someone show me how to work the AP.

While we're on shameless 'professional' commercials:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/62xreSr25uI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://youtu.be/YoRJXUFVsys[/youtube]

[youtube]http://youtu.be/WugGMSOMBbw[/youtube]

Todd please explain to us how loser pays, as you envision it, would have worked in this Cirrus lawsuit. Keeping in mind that the plaintiff won at the trial court level. When does the loser have to pay? Does the attorney have to be paid first by the client and then reimbursed by the loser? Would the money have gone back and forth in this case?

Along those lines please define a "winner" and "loser" under a system, as you envision it, in a comparative fault system.

Aviation claims often involve third party claims, counterclaims and cross claims. How would that work in the loser pays system?

If I have the ability to hire 10 Wallstreet attorneys, even though I only need one to defend the case and win, does the loser have to pay the 10 attorneys? If the plaintiff hires their attorney on a 50% contingency fee vs. 33 1/3% Does the loser have to pay that percentage and inherit the contract of the Plaintiff.

What if my lawyer charges $1000/hr? Does the loser have to pay that amount?

How would settlements work in a "loser pays" system.

You have written openly on BT regarding the avionics (credit card) related lawsuit in which you are a defendant. How would you envision "loser pays" working in that case when it reaches conclusion?

In short, it's complicated...

We have a guy here in Iowa that has a television commercial where he has a picture of his Piper Saratoga and states, "XXX can fly anywhere in the state of Iowa to meet with you."

I (and I am almost serious) wanted to place an add with my Baron and say, "I can get to you twice as fast as he can, give me a call."

You will never hear me defend this stuff. It is the real reason you guys/public feel the way you do and it is justifiable. No excuses here.

I find these crazy guys more humorous than anything. Always gives me quite a chuckle.

But it's probably safe to assume these Jim Adler types don't exactly pause and weigh the ethical argument before filing suit - probably a much simpler probability and size of judgement calculation going on.

Watch out Sanderson, sue me here in TX and i'm gettin' the Texas Hammer - loser pays, he barks and BITES , and isn't cheap

..and the scarier thing is I guarantee you I would have received a ton of phone calls if I placed that TV ad.

Where's that BT thread about moving out of the country?