LEX crash first officer asks "Why?"
09-18-2006, 12:40 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: Any, usually behind the wing
Posts: 382
I believe the old woman got her money because:
1. the burns were severe
2. McDonald's had previous incidents where people got burned
3. They served coffee through a drive through window in a unsafe fashion-i.e. too hot and a flimsy cup
I read one of the attorneys thought this was a bogus lawsuit but said he was shocked by the severity of the burns when he saw photos.
Me, I'm a ground bound road warrior. I don't get my coffee from McDonald's because it's too damn hot! I want to drink it now, not an hour from now. It's like they still haven't gotten it.
1. the burns were severe
2. McDonald's had previous incidents where people got burned
3. They served coffee through a drive through window in a unsafe fashion-i.e. too hot and a flimsy cup
I read one of the attorneys thought this was a bogus lawsuit but said he was shocked by the severity of the burns when he saw photos.
Me, I'm a ground bound road warrior. I don't get my coffee from McDonald's because it's too damn hot! I want to drink it now, not an hour from now. It's like they still haven't gotten it.
09-18-2006, 01:29 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: B777 FO
Posts: 416
ryguy...ok but answer my questions from the previous post.
If you were the one who screwed up, would you be ready to give up your home and assets to the families? I know someone whose family member was involved in an accident and passed. The passenger's families sued for everything. They even went after the family home! Is that acceptable to you if you ever screw up?
If you were the one who screwed up, would you be ready to give up your home and assets to the families? I know someone whose family member was involved in an accident and passed. The passenger's families sued for everything. They even went after the family home! Is that acceptable to you if you ever screw up?
Nope, absolutely not. I do not believe they should be personally liable for damages. I don't recall where I said they should be. In this country we have insurance and this is what that insurance is for. This was not a criminal act where they can get damages from the person. All I am saying is they are entitled to sue the company and or Comairs insurance company. The loss of life and that persons income has to be replaced. This is part of being in business as an airline. The insurance will have to pay out like they are supposed to, that's exactly why airlines must carry liability insurance.
09-18-2006, 02:01 PM
#43
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,382
Well, not exactly...ever heard of subrogation? The fundamental principle upon which our great nation's civil judicial system operates is that it is ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT! The economic well being (and jaguars and vacation homes) of millions of plaintiff's attorneys depend on this one underlying concept...
What subrogation means is that the insurance company has now suffered "damages" by having to pay a claim (even though they signed up to do exactly that). The insurance company can (and will) sue anybody and everything in sight to attempt to recover their own "loss". The one entity that they cannot sue is the named insured on the policy..ie the airline. But unless the airline paid EXTRA premiums to name other parties such as the crew, manufacturer, or contract mx or whoever else as additional insured (unlikely), then no else is protected, and they all WILL be sued by the insurance company.
So, think of some of worst, most abusive regional airlines in the business...do you think they would spent extra money to name you, the pilot, on their insurance policy just to protect your house and savings? If you think so, you really might want to verify that...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
