USMCFLYR

The conduct should be addressed - under a different set of charges/lawsuits.
The case before the jury was about the crash - and if it can't be proven that the float had anything to do with the crash then the judgment is still suspect in my mind. Of course this opinion rests on the fact that the ACTUAL cause of the crash (as far as be *proved*) was in fact continued VFR into IMC conditions as the NTSB reported.

Yoda2

I was fortunate enough to meet and get to know his grandaughter. She told me stories about him that would blow your mind! As an interesting side note, Jimmy Doolittle used to pick her and her mother up, along with others, and fly them to the Indy 500...

rickair7777

I agree. Separate issue, and probably a criminal one at that. But there's no contingency money in that.

WhistlePig

Rickair7777 & USMCFLYER:

At first blush your idea seems reasonable. But lets explore a bit:

First, wealthy parties would be incentivized to always lie, cheat, and break the rules. If they get away with it, great. If not, they have not harmed their case and whatever punishment meted out for unethical behavior would be less than the current system. Otherwise there would be no need to separate the causes of action as you suggest.

Second, almost every litigation could now conceivably lead to entirely separate litigation, surely increasing and possibly doubling the caseload on the already burdened courts. This flies in the face of judicial efficiency, (which currently flies in the face of itself, but that's a separate issue).

Third, developing this new, separate claim of "bad behavior" would lead to duplicitous discovery and litigation expense and a very real possibility of the evidence becoming stale.

Fourth, The court overseeing the discovery phase is most familiar with the parties, the evidence, the briefs, and the relevant law. They are the best and most efficient finder of fact in these instances.

Finally, the deterrent value, perserving ethical duties, and maintaing the integrity of the judicial process is very important and cannot be overemphasized. In egregious examples such as this, preserving the judicial integrity, maintaing judicial efficiency, and punishing unethical attorneys and their clients is more important than seeking the truth.

An analogy of your hypo: You interview a young instructor, everything seems to be in order, and schedule an evaluation flight. The day before the evaluation flight, you discover that he falsified most of the entries in his logbook and although he may be barely qualified without the deception, he still lied to you and is untrustworthy. Can you cancel the evaluation flight and tell the mendacious scamp to pack sand?
Sorry, you can't. That's a separate issue with separate penalties but no penalty so extreme as termination or non-hiring. Under your hypo, you are compelled to go through with the evaluation and, if he performs well, you may be compelled to hire this person you do not trust and then pursue a separate remedy for the falsification, perhaps working for half pay for a few months, or cleaning the head for a year.

The current system places the burden on the harming party and the harming party's counsel. Accidental destruction of electronic evidence happens all the time. If it is immediately disclosed there is usually no problem. In most cases there are other ways to get the evidence and if it expensive, the harming party usually pays for it and litigation is not affected.
Lycoming on the other hand did a bad, bad thing. And they did it with full knowledge of the possible consequences. Lycoming took the case out of the arena of truth and thus made the case about their unethical actions instead of the actual cause.

Questions? Fire away!

WhistlePig

Now that is really cool! Indy 500 and Jimmy Doolittle in one trip. They just don't make 'em like Rogers and Darrow anymore. Actually, that may be a good thing. The techno advanced world sitting though a Darrow closing lasting two days is hard to contemplate, a closing in which jurors and judges wept! I wonder how much real law got into those trials. I can imagine a bored judge overruling legitimate objections just to hear Darrow or Rogers tell a story. Come to think of it, that works pretty well in some Alabama state courts ...

Heisenberg

As far as the engine "malfunction":

There was an incident near me a few years ago during which a student and CFI experience an engine failure in their 152 and had to put it down. It was discovered that the failed ending was more than 1800 past its recommended TBO.

If the engine *should* have been overhauled ~500 prior to the accident, wouldn't the float deficiency been discovered and rectified? While TBO isn't necessarily a requirement, it still seems prudent to follow the professional recommendation of the company that built it and get it overhauled at the proper time.

Not exactly aviation related, but still relevant: autobahns in Germany have no speed limits along certain stretches. However, there are recommended speed limits (much like advisory yellow speed limits signs on off-ramps here). If a driver is involved in an accident that may reasonably have been prevented had they been traveling under that recommended limit, they can still be held accountable for any damaged caused because of it. The speed is not a rule per se, but can still be used against someone who is clearly recklessly ignoring safety practices.

The blame for any engine problems lies with the operator, not the engine manufacturer.

Pilot's actions:

This is a simple case of continued VFR flight into IMC as many have pointed out. While I don't mean to diminish the tragic way in which numerous lives have and will be affected by this event, the pilot made the decision to continue when is was not the prudent solution.

Yoda2

I thought you would like the Doolittle deal! I'm also happy you knew of Rogers. I would not want to be represented by an attorney that wasn't familiar with his work! And yes, he did make up stuff; and perfected the cross. He is also, likely, the reason Los Angeles has Griffith Park. When Griffith was released, he still owed Rogers 70K. (in 1906 $) Griffith was so grateful for Rogers work that he, instead, offered Rogers what is now Griffith Park. Rogers said, just give me the money...

jagbn

To answer the early question about why NTSB reports are inadmissible, it's because Congress said so. However, only the conclusions and probable cause determination are inadmissible. Generally, purely factual findings within the report are admissible. Opinion stuff is not admissible.

Nothing prevents a defendant from hiring experts to opine as to the cause of a mishap, something Lycoming surely did in this case. The plaintiffs do the same thing. You end up with dueling experts in front of a lay jury (that is, nobody on the jury with any particular aviation expertise--a pilot would never make it on to the jury). The lay jury sees the grieving family members of the people killed in the crash, including the families of two entirely innocent passengers, they see a pile of money at the defense table in the form of a corporation, and so they throw some money at the dead people. It's human nature.

To get a case in front of a jury, the plaintiffs need only some evidence that the defendant was liable. They had it here. Every crash is exhaustively investigated down to the last screw and rivet, so there's normally something for the plaintiffs to point at as the "real" cause of the crash. There is always an expert available to opine that this defect really did cause the crash.

Once a case is at trial, and the plaintiffs have a theory upon which to hang their hat, it's a crap shoot. I have no doubt whatsoever that Lycoming's attorneys conducted extensive mock trial research in this case. The fact that they went to trial means that they thought their chances of prevailing at trial were better than settling (or the plaintiffs simply refused to settle). No matter how much research you do though, you never know what the actual jury will determine.

Mock trial research works thusly--one puts ads out for people to participate in a market research project. You get say 50-60 people to show up, maybe several groups over a few days. You conduct one-day mini trials, presenting both sides' arguments. The mock jurors return verdicts and total damages.

Let's say you have 10 mock juries. 4 return plaintiff's verdicts, the other 6 return defense verdicts. The 10 juries say the damages are, on average, 15 million dollars. (One might say 50 million, another 5 million, another zero). Somewhat simply stated, the defendant has a 40% chance of losing the case and being required to pay $15 million in damages. That makes the case worth $6 million. (These are pure economic decisions made by insurers and defendants--the true underlying merits of the case have little to do with it. "Truth and justice will prevail!" has little or nothing to do with it.) So you try to settle for that amount, plus the costs of actually going to trial. If you can't reach a settlement, then off to trial you go, and deal with the consequences.

Now that there's a verdict, the parties will no doubt talk post-trial settlement. Plaintiffs will now have to consider the likelihood of defendants prevailing on appeal. Depending on how weak or strong the case is in the face of an appeal, the plaintiffs may well decide to settle for a lesser amount in exchange for the defendants waiving their appeal. That final settlement amount will likely remain very confidential.

If the case is appealed (after the appropriate motions for a defense judgement notwithstanding the jury's verdict at the trial level), Lycoming will have a tough case. Actual legal errors by the trial court are reviewed either de novo (on purely legal matters) or for an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. It's tough to show abuse of discretion. As for the jury's verdict, the verdict will be upheld unless there is no evidence whatsoever upon which the jury could have made their decision, and that the evidence at trial actually compels a defense verdict. That's a really really high hurdle on appeal.

Zoot Suit

A SEATTLE JURY......




.....Say no more.