Quote:
Originally posted by tobster1911
But, lets assume that they were just hurt not killed. It goes back to what everyone was saying about natural hazards of the job. IF you work on an airplane there is a natural risk of crashing. You as a passenger assume this same risk. You must have proof (not just claim) that the proper procedures were not followed before it becomes anyone else's fault. This is exactly Len's point. He even stated that he would not mind paying if the injury was truly his fault.
|
Actually, in cases like this, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) is invoked. Basically, this shifts the burden from the plaintiff, who normally has to prove that the defendent is negligent, to the defendent, who now has to prove that he wasn't negligent. The basic theory is that because the plane crashed, someone must have been negligent.