Gotta love lawyers

And you know the exact cause of the crash and whether or not something happened....:insane:

Remember the title of the thread when you one day need a lawyer.

Of course I don't know but I'm going by the official NTSB report. If any evidence surfaces that states mechanical faliure then of course they would have a valid lawsuit.

Lawyers are like cops. You hate them when you get a speeding ticket but of course love tem when you need em :)
 
Sweet.

Young widow, fatherless child, millions in earnings lost. This won't make it to trial. Cirrus will pay this guy off big to keep this away from a jury. CHA-CHING!!
 
The "pilot" lawyer is pronouncing Ailerons "Air a lons". ??????

edit:ai·le·ron (
amacr.gif
prime.gif
l
schwa.gif
-r
obreve.gif
n
lprime.gif
)
another edit: The written portion is spelling it Airleons.
 
The "pilot" lawyer is pronouncing Ailerons "Air a lons". ??????

edit:ai·le·ron (
amacr.gif
prime.gif
l
schwa.gif
-r
obreve.gif
n
lprime.gif
)
another edit: The written portion is spelling it Airleons.

Wasn't there a parachute deployment a few years back after an aileron failure??
 
And you know the exact cause of the crash and whether or not something happened....:insane:

Remember the title of the thread when you one day need a lawyer.

I'm just curious... Did you watch the video?

I don't know how these guys sleep at night... You can see him making misleading statements regarding the other Cirrus accidents. He doesn't come right out and say it, but it's implied they were also due to Aileron incidents. Bizarre.
 
Wasn't there a parachute deployment a few years back after an aileron failure??
That one ran into icing, I dont know if they got their chute out or not.

Edit, you said years, I was thinking of weeks, ie the one near the grand canyon.
I'm just curious... Did you watch the video?

I don't know how these guys sleep at night... You can see him making misleading statements regarding the other Cirrus accidents. He doesn't come right out and say it, but it's implied they were also due to Aileron incidents. Bizarre.

The thing that gets me is that he wasnt there for any of these incidents, he has no evidence of anything, all he has is his assertions and mispronounciation of basic aviation terms, yet he will probably walk away with a huge settlement because Cirrus would rather avoid bad press. It has nothing at all to do with what actually happened in the plane. $$$$$$$
 
The thing that gets me is that he wasnt there for any of these incidents, he has no evidence of anything, all he has is his assertions and mispronounciation of basic aviation terms, yet he will probably walk away with a huge settlement because Cirrus would rather avoid bad press. It has nothing at all to do with what actually happened in the plane. $$$$$$$

It's all so frustrating to watch. I wish we had tort reform! Or at least I wish these aircraft manufacturers could just have it be worth their while to fight these lawsuits hard. I know that can be counter-productive though...
 
It's all so frustrating to watch. I wish we had tort reform! Or at least I wish these aircraft manufacturers could just have it be worth their while to fight these lawsuits hard. I know that can be counter-productive though...
Hutz2.jpg

EDIT: I misquoted Mr. Hutz
Hutz: And so, ladies and gentleman of the jury I rest my case.
Judge: Hmmm. Mr. Hutz, do you know that you're not wearing any pants?
Hutz: DAAAA!! I move for a bad court thingy.
Judge: You mean a mistrial?
Hutz: Right!! That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy.
Judge: You mean the lawyer?
Hutz: Right.
 
Sweet.

Young widow, fatherless child, millions in earnings lost. This won't make it to trial. Cirrus will pay this guy off big to keep this away from a jury. CHA-CHING!!

No they won't. Cirrus is notorious for being a company that does not settle. Not defending the lawyer or his statements, since I don't know anything about it...and neither does anyone else here.

wrxpilot, if your wrx's engine blows up and subaru refuses to honor their warranty, who you gonna call? Well you were driving it too hard, they say! Then you'll see what you think about tort reform.
 
I'm just curious... Did you watch the video?

I don't know how these guys sleep at night... You can see him making misleading statements regarding the other Cirrus accidents. He doesn't come right out and say it, but it's implied they were also due to Aileron incidents. Bizarre.


Nope, don't need to watch the video. Wouldn't have changed my answer if I did.

The original poster was referring to lawyer's as less than desirable or not so good terms. My response was to that and that only. The NTSB has not completed the investigation, this person does not work for the NTSB, etc... So he really has no idea what led to the accident. It is never "One" thing; It is a "chain of events".

Call lawyers scum as much as you want, but you'll be singing a different tune when and if you need one for whatever reason.
 
......

The thing that gets me is that he wasnt there for any of these incidents, he has no evidence of anything, all he has is his assertions and mispronounciation of basic aviation terms, yet he will probably walk away with a huge settlement because Cirrus would rather avoid bad press. It has nothing at all to do with what actually happened in the plane. $$$$$$$

And you do ????

Didn't think so.........
 
No they won't. Cirrus is notorious for being a company that does not settle. Not defending the lawyer or his statements, since I don't know anything about it...and neither does anyone else here.

wrxpilot, if your wrx's engine blows up and subaru refuses to honor their warranty, who you gonna call? Well you were driving it too hard, they say! Then you'll see what you think about tort reform.

Subaru already does that, what are you smoking? If I was wailing on the engine beyond its intended design, they should do it! Not their problem (and they can tell if the drivetrain has been abused).

A few years ago I was just a kid working through college at a large, national quick lube chain. I was physically attacked by a mentally disturbed assistant manager in front of several witnesses. I could've sued and had all my college paid for, and probably had a nice car too. But I didn't... It wasn't the fault of the business. In fact, I even testified in court on their behalf a couple of months later, when some scumbag tried to file a fake claim on us. The "victim" showed up with his "evidence" (a transmission), and I (literally right there in the court) discovered signs of his tampering with it. Case dismissed. My reward? Lunch at McDs. I was fine with it, I didn't deserve anything special - I was doing my job.

A job I had when I was fresh out of engineering school a couple of years ago was an accident investigator. The utter BS I would see people going after companies for was astounding. There is a pathetic LACK of self responsibility out in our society. It made me so sick that I eventually quit that business. Yes, there are some situations that make make persuasive arguments against tort reform (e.g. "loser pays"). But there are some good potential solutions for that as well.
 
The original poster was referring to lawyer's as less than desirable or not so good terms. My response was to that and that only. The NTSB has not completed the investigation, this person does not work for the NTSB, etc... So he really has no idea what led to the accident. It is never "One" thing; It is a "chain of events".

No he didn't. He provided a link and said this may not be the correct section for it. Did you see something else there? Hmm.... Doesn't look like he edited it. So I guess not.

Call lawyers scum as much as you want, but you'll be singing a different tune when and if you need one for whatever reason.

He didn't call them scum and neither did I. I said I wonder how these guys sleep at night - referring to the Attorney's statements about ailersons and the nine other Cirrus crashes. As if there were some kind of connection. At least a couple of those have the full NTSB reports out. Nothing about factory installed or design problems with the ailerons. Mostly just pilots being dumb.
 
No he didn't. He provided a link and said this may not be the correct section for it. Did you see something else there? Hmm.... Doesn't look like he edited it. So I guess not.....
He didn't call them scum and neither did I. I said I wonder how these guys sleep at night - referring to the Attorney's statements about ailersons and the nine other Cirrus crashes. ......

Relax big fella. Look at the title of the thread: "Gotta Love Lawyers". You know as well as I do, that it is a less than desirable view towards them.

As for you, you wonder how they sleep at night? Is that how you refer to people you have positive views towards?

The only points in my original post which you apparently missed are:

1. he wasn't there.
2. he has no idea what did or did not cause the accident.
3. he has no idea what the lawyers know or don't know either.
4. last but not least, if he was in need of a lawyer for whatever reason, he'll be singing a different tune.
 
wrxpilot said:
A few years ago I was just a kid working through college at a large, national quick lube chain. I was physically attacked by a mentally disturbed assistant manager in front of several witnesses. I could've sued and had all my college paid for, and probably had a nice car too. But I didn't... It wasn't the fault of the business. In fact, I even testified in court on their behalf a couple of months later, when some scumbag tried to file a fake claim on us. The "victim" showed up with his "evidence" (a transmission), and I (literally right there in the court) discovered signs of his tampering with it. Case dismissed. My reward? Lunch at McDs. I was fine with it, I didn't deserve anything special - I was doing my job.

A job I had when I was fresh out of engineering school a couple of years ago was an accident investigator. The utter BS I would see people going after companies for was astounding. There is a pathetic LACK of self responsibility out in our society. It made me so sick that I eventually quit that business. Yes, there are some situations that make make persuasive arguments against tort reform (e.g. "loser pays"). But there are some good potential solutions for that as well.

Good grief....you should go to law school so you can rewrite the laws yourself. Or at least learn to make a coherent argument. You list your attack as something that wasn't the company's fault, then say it was an example of something that you could have sued over. No you couldn't-you said it yourself. What does this prove about tort reform? All you're saying is that you're special. Fine-you're better than everyone else, you don't have to prove that.

You say that in accident investigation, there's a pathetic lack of self responsibility. I see it as ignorance on the public's part. They don't know the engineering side of things as well as you, maybe it was their fault, maybe it wasn't. The point is that they wouldn't know the difference. I also see people's ignorance in their posts, judging lawyers, pilots' actions, juries, etc, when they know nothing about the case. These posts are no better than John Q Public making unfounded claims about an aircraft crash that he knows nothing about. (This is you.)

Lastly, if you acted the same as an accident investigator as you do here, you must not have been a very good investigator, as you really jump to conclusions. Regarding the Lidle crash, you say:
wrxpilot said:
Mostly just pilots being dumb
 
Back
Top