Comments on: Remember, “Judges are like umpires”

By: Don’t

Don’t — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:53:26 +0000

[…] Introduce a patent application purportedly signed in part by someone who in fact had been dead for a year or two [Law.com/The Recorder, Chicago’s Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, of blog-stalking fame, client’s patent declared unenforceable] Or pursue a patent-infringement case based on what a federal judge later ruled to be a “tissue of lies” [NYLJ; New York law firm Abelman, Frayne & Schwab and lawyer David Jaroslawicz, ordered to pay opponents’ legal fees; earlier mentions of Jaroslawicz at this site here, here, here, and here] […]

By: michael walsh

michael walsh — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:51:38 +0000

The apartment owner’s lawsuit seems well taken to me. A non-issue for a forum like this. The widow’s … not so much.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:38:28 +0000

“Flying in any kind of confined space is a *huge* risk and there’s no way I can imagine the flight instructor wouldn’t have been completely engaged in supervising.”

Last time I checked the FARs had severe restrictions on flights over or near urban areas, so I have to wonder if this flight was even legal? If it was legal than I have to question the sanity of the FAA for allowing it to be legal. In my opinion the Dentist has a valid claim, it is Mrs. Lidel’s lawsuit that I’m questioning.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:57:31 +0000

Legally, I’m fairly certain they are jointly and severally liable. However, reasonably, the flight instructor should have been the one supervising all aspects of the flight, *especially* low-altitude maneuvering in a densely-populated area.

That’s a high-risk maneuver that would demand *any* pilot’s full attention if they decided that for some reason that was what they had to do. Any rational flight instructor would be on high alert during such an operation regardless of how proficient he believes his student is. (Especially when you know the student will be tempted to be looking at the buildings and other pretty things.)

I’ve heard that the accident was caused by a box-canyon effect combined with unusual winds. Basically, they were trying to turn around in a confined space surrounded by tall buildings. During the turn, the wind was pushing them towards the buildings, causing the turn to require more space than expected (or available).

Flying in any kind of confined space is a *huge* risk and there’s no way I can imagine the flight instructor wouldn’t have been completely engaged in supervising.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:11:57 +0000

This doesn’t surprise me. Lidel’s widow considered him to be a top pilot, therefore he couldn’t have made a mistake. It has to be the aircraft’s fault not the man at the controls. An “unidentified design flaw” ranks right up there with unicorns, snipes, Bigfoot, Santa Claus and the Grassy Knoll Gunman.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:55:41 +0000

It’s difficult to imagine a better example of res ipsa loquitur than an airplane hitting a high-rise in Manhattan. It’s a rebuttable presumption, and presumably, Lidle’s estate will try to cross-claim against Cirrus for contribution or indemnity, but I’ve never seen any evidence of problems or design flaws with the plane. As for the issue of who was flying, given that there are dual controls on the Cirrus, arguably Lidle and the instructor are jointly and severally liable.

By: Melvin

Melvin — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:19:19 +0000

Why didn’t Lidle’s widow sue the architect, builder, & supplier of materials for the apartment building, as well as the City of New York for allowing a 50-story building to be built there, causing the plane to crash into it? (Surprising no one has thought of that yet!)

Or for that matter, I’m surprised the dentist hasn’t tried to sue the Lidle estate for damages; at least, not yet . . . . (Hmmm, might be grounds for legal malpractice against the lawyer!)

By: LisaMarie

LisaMarie — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:26:17 +0000

Wow. Can you seriously sue for an “unknown design flaw” in something that injured someone?

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:52:53 +0000

I object to the anti-dentite tone of this post!

(A Seinfeld reference, for the pop culture-impaired…)

By: nevins

nevins — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:42:17 +0000

Not much on this accident yet at the NTSB web site: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061018X01530&key=1 Liability should be proportionate to the acceptance of risk. When I join my fellow idiots and morons on the road, I accept that the risk of getting injured (as they also accept) is part of the deal. Liability is for mistakes, but accidents are accidents. When I sit in my home I am not partaking of general aviation, not accepting the risks of being a private pilot in the air. Thus I expect pilots overflying my home to use extraordinary care, and that they owe strict liability to me regardless of the reason they might fall out of the sky (a risk fully accepted by them when they climb aboard).