Porsche exec's warning fax to dealers re: GT--2004

[sammyg2]

$53M Awarded in Crash of a Cessna 150
posted on:

September 28, 2007
author:

Staff

category:

Aviation Accidents, Personal Injury and Product Liability

Share this! A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and against two component part manufacturers in a lawsuit arising out of a plane crash in Florida.

A flight instructor and a former student pilot were awarded a $53 million by the jury in the lawsuit against the two manufacturers. The manufacturers were at fault and caused a 1999 airplane crash that seriously injured the two men.

The jury found the companies responsible for the Ormond Beach crash of a Cessna 150 because they had known about defects in the carburetor that could cause engine failure.

Obviously, a manufacturer of component parts for an airplane can't be allowed to put a component on a plane that it knows is likely to cause serious injury or death. Because airplane crashes involve deaths in most instances, safety considerations can never be ignored or compromised.

The jury also ruled that the carburetor manufacturer, Precision Airmotive Corp. of Marysville, Washington, should pay an additional $1.5 million in punitive damages because the defect had been reported numerous times during the course of 40 years, but was never fixed.

The plaintiffs in the case were flying a Cessna 150 on the night of July 24, 1999, when the engine failed, causing the plane to crash nose-first near the Ormond Beach airport. Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that an exhaust valve got stuck, which caused a loss in engine power.

The evidence at trial revealed that the carburetor tended to run very rich, causing the engine to become overloaded with fuel, which can cause the valves to stick. The crash left both men with extensive injuries, including facial fractures and brain injuries.

Under the jury verdict, the two men were awarded $32 million and $21 million respectively. The carburetor manufacturer will be required to pay 70% of the verdict, while the engine manufacturer, Teledyne Technologies Inc., is 30% liable.

$53M Awarded in Crash of a Cessna 150 | Beasley Allen Law Firm

[cashflyer]

Win or lose, it costs to defend.

[javadog]

Look up Cleveland Vs. Piper Aircraft... some real stupidity in that one...

JR

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Cessna found liable for $480M in crash of 185 | Aviation International News

Those suits with big awards always get headlines, but they are NEVER paid out because they are overturned on appeal or nullified. But the lobbyists' PR machine also never publicizes the final resolution.

Cessna Aircraft settles seat-rail lawsuit - Wichita Business Journal

[javadog]

Cessna paid out some big bucks, so I'm not going to worry about the lobbyist's PR machine. Don't forget that the pilot made a bad landing and after the incident his seat was observed to be in the same position as his POS wife.

Piper fought their suit against Cleveland for years and I think it killed off the original Piper company. He was an even bigger idiot, to wit:

Cleveland was injured July 8, 1983 while attempting to take off from the Mid-Valley Airport in Los Lunas, New Mexico, in a Piper Super Cub Model PA-18-150. The plane was towing a glider that was attached by rope to the aircraft's tail. Cleveland and a cinematographer were planning to film the glider's flight for a television commercial. With assistance from a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified mechanic, Cleveland had removed the front pilot's seat from the plane and installed a camera. At the time of the accident, Cleveland was piloting the plane from the rear pilot seat.4

A few days before Cleveland planned to shoot the commercial, the owner of the Mid-Valley airport became concerned about the safety of the operation and about compliance with FAA regulations. The owner closed the airport to prevent Cleveland from taking off. On the morning of the accident, the owner noticed activity at the airport and parked his van in the runway to prevent takeoffs and landings. Shortly thereafter, Cleveland attempted to fly the reconfigured Piper airplane. During takeoff, the aircraft struck the owner's parked van. Cleveland's head struck the camera, resulting in serious head and brain injuries.

Cleveland's wife, the conservator of his estate, brought this diversity action against Piper, which manufactured and sold the Super Cub in 1970. At the conclusion of the trial, a jury determined that Piper negligently designed the aircraft without adequate forward vision from the rear seat and negligently failed to provide a rear shoulder harness.

I think jury foremen should be provided with a court-appointed special spoon to be used in cases where the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyers are *******s.

JR

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by javadog

I think jury foremen should be provided with a court-appointed special spoon to be used in cases where the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyers are *******s.

JR

That would go a long ways towards depleting our inflated population of lawyers.