Originally Posted by
theUpsideDown
Defense: Your honor, the defense understands the procecutions case, and since it isn't a new fight, we ask you hold up the past practice and past settlements, and conclude this pre trail.
Care to cite some caselaw to backup your position? Let's run with the following fact pattern. Pilot of a wholly owned subsidiary is rejected for a pilot position at the mainline owner due to subpar cognitive or psychological testing then either intentionally, through negligence, or what can be described as a cognitive deficiency causes damages to a party while employed as a pilot at the subsidiary.
Originally Posted by
theUpsideDown
Judge: Of course, that's why I allowed you to be present only by speakerphone. I only wanted to let the procecution know that if you keep this up I'll petiton the state to make this a frivolous lawsuit and require the lawyer bringing any further suit to pay both lawyers fees.
I still don't get your reference to "procecution" don't you think plaintiff and defendant would be more appropriate? I also can't figure out why the judge would petition the state to make the case a frivolous lawsuit you know that's not how it works correct?
Originally Posted by
theUpsideDown
Defense: but these pilots online thought I had a great case!
They might be correct given some scenarios I still can't believe the mainline carrier is conducting a psychological evaluation rejecting people then allowing then to perform the same position within the organization. If a party is ever rejected due to the psychological exam and uses their position and access to an aircraft to cause injury or a loss of life you might want to rethink your position on liability.
Originally Posted by
theUpsideDown
Judge: pilots are legally defined as idiots. You should remember that in the future.
Some...