Legal sanity rears its seldom seen head:

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/court-rul ... NjE1NjY5S0

Legal sanity would now require the plaintiffs to pay the defendants legal fees.

They should require the family that sued to pay all of Cirrus's court costs x2 and pay all of the actual court costs x2 also. This is the kind of stuff that pisses me off without end.

This is another reason I do not give flight instruction even though I am a CFI. I can make an agreement with the person I am teaching, but nothing keeps their family for suing me for their spouse's mistakes.

From another story...boy, I'm sure glad I'm not on the hook for "defective nonwritten instructions"...

"In their ruling Wednesday, justices said suppliers have a duty to warn of dangerous products if it’s reasonable that someone could get injured. They said Cirrus did that by providing instructions, but training on safe use of a product is not required.

However, justices Paul Anderson and Alan Page disagreed, saying the majority of the justices overstepped their authority, essentially saying consumers can’t hold suppliers of dangerous products liable for injury because of defective nonwritten instructions."

+1 for me Todd

Well, in MN you could. The core of the appeals (and now supreme) court decision was that there is no liability of the teacher for the student being a dummy. The plaintiffs tried to go after the deepest pocket (UND foundation) based on a product liability theory which was eventually rejected.

But yes, the attorneys who perpetrated this farce should be jointly liable with the plaintiff for all of Cirrus and UNDs expenses.

I'm flabbergasted ... this is preposterous and against the American way! Millions should be taken from the person or business with the most money and given to those who crashed and their lawyers!

I'm worried that rulings like this could lead to increased personal responsibility and that is certainly NOT the America I know.

I sense a touch of sarcasm in this post.

A touch? It's marinated in sarcasm.

Sanity, at least a little. Bravo.

The negative press Cirrus would get from seeking compensation would erase any potential benefit to them though. Won't happen.

Remember, Cirrus used the exact same legal system to file its own cilvil liability claim awhile back. It was talked about on BT.

Actually, the system worked here. One of the parties used their right to appeal and was able to get a judgment overturned.

One third of the Court agreed with the Plaintiff.

Loser pays on its face sounds great. But, when you start peeling the onion a few layers down, strong proponents usually soften their stance.

I didn't like this case from the beginning either. I thought it was a lousy case. Still do. Having said that, take a look, as an example, at the video that is out there on the new Cessna Corvalis. It's almost a joke to watch the company representative use the computer interface while flying the airplane. To think there would be no obligation on the part of the company to train other than to say "let's be careful out there" is a joke as well.


I know nothing about the families here. But, I will bet the initial conversations with their attorneys had a familiar ring, "We're not the type of people that sue, but..."

My .02.

After nine years of litigation and thousands of billable hours and travel expenses paid for with UND foundation money that was intended to fund flight instruction for college students. The system failed.



They did train him. The claim was that they didn't train him not to fly into clouds at night.

We all really need to be responsible for our own actions. The attitude that it's always somebody else's fault when you fail or do something stupid is bad for society. It's just a legitimate way of stealing, nothing more.

Tom,

So just to make sure I understand; every manufacturer should include enough directions for anything which is dangerous for all situations is your position. If that is true, give me three products and I am positive I can find a way to make them dangerous which are not covered by the instructions.
The core foundation of the case was the manufacturer has a liability because the pilot did not know what he was doing and therefore it is the manufacturers responsibility to make sure he does. This advocates people have no personal responsibility for the correct and proper use of what he/she buys. To me; making the manufacturer liable for the stupidity -- sorry responsibilities -- of the consumer is a dangerous and slippery slope that our legal system has slid way to far down and keeps pushing the limits on (why do I need a disclaimer that coffee is hot and may burn me?). This is why there are major calls for tort reform in the USA by many people who are not lawyers.

Tim