LEX Crash F/O blames passengers

WOW, just wow!!! No offense to any lawyers on the boards, but most lawyers are scum of the earth!!! I cannot stand lawyers!!!!!!!!
 
I think I saw that line in the movie "Airplane - they knew the risks". Sad. However, as pilots we need to recognize how difficult and confusing taxiways are when there is construction and should work with the FAA to improve temporary markings. Every CFI on every flight should have the student "bug" the active runway and the last thing at power up should be "check heading" both indicators are correct and you are on the proper runway.
 
A lawyer for the first officer of Comair Flight 5191 has asserted a novel, and controversial, defense.........

It's the lawyer, not the FO.
 
Wow, what ever happened to people being thankful? Granted, I wouldn't want to go through any of what he's gone through, but the guy is still alive, and if that's not something to be thankful for, I don't know what is.
 
Stone Cold said:
WOW, just wow!!! No offense to any lawyers on the boards, but most lawyers are scum of the earth!!! I cannot stand lawyers!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Not most lawyers - just most lawyers you know of. I'm married to an attorney, and have several friends who are lawyers. These guys are definitely in the minority - but they do tend to receive the most attention. You never hear about the probate attorneys making sure a person's will is properly carried out, or the immigration attorneys helping people legally immigrate to the U.S.

It's like saying that most airline pilots show up on the job drunk, since those are the only ones we hear about in the news.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Not most lawyers - just most lawyers you know of. I'm married to an attorney, and have several friends who are lawyers. These guys are definitely in the minority - but they do tend to receive the most attention. You never hear about the probate attorneys making sure a person's will is properly carried out, or the immigration attorneys helping people legally immigrate to the U.S.

It's like saying that most airline pilots show up on the job drunk, since those are the only ones we hear about in the news.
Click to expand...
Okay, let me rephrase...most lawyers I've met are scum. Keep in mind, my wife used to work as a paralegal in RI, and I've met a few lawyers. Most of them I've met have been egotistical pricks, and scum of the earth...is that better?!:D (and she was just in the real estate department).

Oh yeah, there are 2 lawyers working for my company in management positions...go figure.
 
What scares me the most about this entire tragedy is that it could've happened to any one of us. I'll keep this FO and the 5191 victims in my thoughts. The lawyer in the article, however, is a dumb SOB and probably a Mooney owner/weekend warrior that absolutely scares the crap out of everyone in the pattern. The FO should probably get new counsel.
 
"He said attorneys had to respond to the lawsuit before they knew all the facts, and before they could even speak with Polehinke."


I can't imagine Polehinke approved it.
 
I just think it's sad that a pilot can be personally liable for anything other than an intentional criminal act.

I gotta wonder what the victims' families hope to attain by suing a regional FO, a bankruptcy declaration?
 
B767Driver said:
If an attorney filed that with a court without my approval, I'd being suing him.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, the attorney did not actually file this, he simply stated it during questioning with the families' attorney and has since recanted it.

Edit: Not saying it's acceptable, just that he's not going to go with this defense.
 
Although I haven't seen him in a few years, and not since the accident, I know Jim Polehinke. This doesn't sound like something he would approve of. I'm sure he wants to defend himself against these lawsuits, but I doubt he would go so far as to blame the victims. That's just not like him at all.
 
To add some context -- when a lawsuit is filed the defendant typically has only 20 days to file an Answer. In that 20 days, he must find a lawyer and get the lawyer up to speed, and the lawyer must draft and file the Answer. The 20 days tends to go pretty fast.

The Answer must include a response to all of the plaintiff's allegations and also any affirmative defenses. If an affirmative defense is not raised in the answer, it is generally considered to be waived (gone -- can't be used later). As a result of the time pressure and a lack of familiarity with a new case, many lawyers throw every affirmative defense they can think of into the Answer (to avoid losing it), and then sort the whole thing out later as time and resources permit.

It seems that is what happened here. The lawyers threw in an ill-advised affirmative defense, and are now withdrawing it after further reflection. It is unlikely that the F/O paid any close attention to the affirmative defenses in the Answer (as they tend to be heavy in legalese), and if he had questioned it, the lawyer no doubt told him not to worry about it, that they would be reviewing them again later.

The continuing question in my mind is why the pax are suing the F/O. Unless he's sitting on a fortune (unlikley), they won't get any money out of him, and considering how badly injured he apparently was, it just seems like piling-on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top