Qalupalik wrote:
the lunacy of this jury decision
The lunacy is so great that there seems no point in considering it precedent. If a sleeping, non-pilot passenger can be held responsible simply because he had a car at destination then all bets are off as to what an instructor might be held liable for by a truly stupid jury.
Let’s now say that the pax in a CAT are liable, because if they hadn’t bought tickets the flight would never have taken off.
Qalupalik wrote:
To put the lunacy of this jury decision
Not merely lunacy, it appears to me to be a grotesque miscarriage of justice.
It would be interesting to see how that case developed further.
The text on the previous page is not about the original verdict (15% liable), but about the estate of the pilot appealing to achieve an INCREASE in that shaer that to 50%, which was rejected. Did the convicted party not appeal?
I suspect that he was insured and the insurance covered that amount, and decided not to fight further.
As I understand it, it is customary in the US to settle for what is covered by the insurance unless the insurer insists on a fight, and the other side rarely pushes for more unless there are significant personal assets. But I may be badly wrong…
Interesting… [ local copy ]
If I read it correctly, the PIC went to sleep with the knowledge and agreement of the passenger in the RHS. If that is correct, I am not surprised that a jury decided that passenger was incredibly dumb to allow that. Strictly speaking a PIC is a PIC even when asleep but this case is really stretching common sense way too far.
However, when it comes to the final settlement, these tend to be nothing like the stuff which makes the US press. The various parties haggle for ages and often the party which pays out is somebody different (possibly an insurance company, but sometimes another vendor who was peripherally involved – example). And these final settlements are usually not online, so to establish who paid out, somebody has to do some serious legwork, which nobody is going to do for a forum post 
Peter wrote:
However, when it comes to the final settlement, these tend to be nothing like the stuff which makes the US press.
This was a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, so I don’t see how it could be more final than that?
Even more interesting… it appears that this was NOT a case of the estate suing the passenger for compensation, but the other way round!
The plaintiff was the passenger asking the estate for compensation for pain, suffering and lost wages, and the jury granted that, but “deducted” 15% for contributory negligence.
Still a bit silly, but a lot less than the other way round.
Airborne_Again wrote:
This was a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, so I don’t see how it could be more final than that?
The real world is not so simple, is it? I think the critical milestone in a court settlement is when the money moves from one party to another to settle the debt, not when the debt is created by a civil judgement. Obviously, many debts are eventually settled via long negotiations for less than the amount owned, particularly when there’s no money to pay with.
That said, in many instances a tax write off is available for the amount not paid, meaning the government helps pay the settlement. I’m not sure if that’s true in this case, and I’ve never been in that situation… but like most of the content in discussions like these, I find it amusing
Peter wrote:
If I read it correctly, the PIC went to sleep with the knowledge and agreement of the passenger in the RHS.
I don’t think that reading is correct. The passenger went to sleep with the agreement of the pilot, saying to wake him if the pilot needed him.
The passenger woke shortly before impact, got no sensible response from the pilot and assumes that he was asleep.
The passenger never agreed to the pilot going to sleep.
Silvaire wrote:
The real world is not so simple, is it? I think the critical milestone in a court settlement is when the money moves from one party to another to settle the debt, not when the debt is created by a civil judgement. Obviously, many debts are eventually settled via long negotiations for less than the amount owned, particularly when there’s no money to pay with.
Why would anyone awarded damages by a ruling of the final court of appeals settle for less? Or even enter into negotiations in the first place?
As per the link in my post, one reason is because they have a limited time (ten years is apparently common) to collect the debt and another is so they can write off the bad debt and receive a fraction of the money quickly in the form of a tax benefit. In addition, many but not all judgements can be discharged through bankruptcy. Another issue would be if you suspected the individual would spend or give away all their assets before dying, leaving their estate with nothing, you might settle.
