Family awarded $17.8 Million after marine jet crash

[Westside]

Family of Marine jet crash victims awarded $17.8 million - Yahoo! News

I am posting the link and wonder what INGO would put in the comments. I am not going to voice my opinion on this one just yet, I want to see what others have to say first.

 

[Plinker]

Family of Marine jet crash victims awarded $17.8 million - Yahoo! News

I am posting the link and wonder what INGO would put in the comments. I am not going to voice my opinion on this one just yet, I want to see what others have to say first.

I didn't see a reason for the crash. Was there negligence on the part of the Marines? Or was it a freak accident? Not enough info.

 

[techres]

IIRC mechanical failure but when the pilot had a chance to land it at an airfield he tried to get to another one. When he eventually had to eject the plan went down into a pair of houses.

The $ is because the pilot had other options but he tried to man it out and ended up dropping a plane on a home. Not intentional, but enough to be liable.

 

[Lex Concord]

I didn't see a reason for the crash. Was there negligence on the part of the Marines? Or was it a freak accident? Not enough info.

I remember this story...pilot bailed over populated area, not far from the ocean, letting the plane fall where it may.

Many people thought he should've gone down with it to try to avoid such a tragedy, rather than vote to save his own arse.

Whatever the cause, the US Government admitted sole responsibility. The guy lost his entire family (with the exception of his father-in-law), his home, and nearly all of his worldly possessions in an instant.

In my opinion, the awards aren't nearly high enough.

 

[GBuck]

Seems like the Corps was liable and they admitted it. Can you put a price on the loss of loved ones?

 

[Zoub]

Most flyers wil tell you it is the takeoffs and the landings.

Not all Pilots can be The Great Santini, even if going Santini is an option, it may not of been for this pilot.

My Dad and others stayed with a B52, kept it from crashing into the center of a major city and actually averted a crash of any kind, then they were charged with mutiny for doing it.

You never see these things happen outside of bases like a Grand Forks or Bismark. Planes + Population = more death then planes + potato fields.

Planes are like bullets, the owners are responsible for them once they are airborne.

 

[bobzilla]

reminds me of the F4 into the Ramada in Indy many many many moons ago.

 

[PistolBob]

The Ramada event was in Oct 1987, and the plane was a Corsair II A-7D. What a tragedy. I knew a couple of the people that got vaporized.

 

[bobzilla]

that's right... I remember the charred wreckage there for what seemed a long time ago.

 

[oldshaky]

I cant put a price on my family . What is your family worth ?

 

[CarmelHP]

I didn't see a reason for the crash. Was there negligence on the part of the Marines? Or was it a freak accident? Not enough info.

Planes aren't supposed to fall on houses. If one does, you can be damned sure someone is going to be assigned liability.

 

[Lex Concord]

I cant put a price on my family . What is your family worth ?

More than life itself.

The damages are a measure of punishment on the liable party. In this case, a mere paper cut in retribution for 5 mortal wounds.

 

[! twitty]

Stuff like this is the exact reason everything is so ridiculously expensive in this country. It used to be if something like this happened it would be a tragedy, now it is a payday. This is starting to get very saddening.

 

[CarmelHP]

Stuff like this is the exact reason everything is so ridiculously expensive in this country. It used to be if something like this happened it would be a tragedy, now it is a payday. This is starting to get very saddening.

This is a fallacy. It has always been the purpose of the law to compensate victims. You can go back last century and before and there are tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of tort cases throughout the 18th and 19th century, insurance company propaganda notwithstanding.

 

[Lex Concord]

Stuff like this is the exact reason everything is so ridiculously expensive in this country. It used to be if something like this happened it would be a tragedy, now it is a payday. This is starting to get very saddening.

You're right...it's folks hearing the cash register right after they bury their wife and/or kids, etc. to the tune of millions that drives up prices.

It couldn't have anything to do with the spendthrift government printing money via the Federal Reserve to support trillions in debt and deficits. No, not that at all.



Consider googling "inflation tax".

 

[John Galt]

This is a fallacy. It has always been the purpose of the law to compensate victims. You can go back last century and before and there are tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of tort cases throughout the 18th and 19th century, insurance company propaganda notwithstanding.

Was it the taxpayers or the one that committed the crime that was doing all of the compensating back then? Wasn't the convicted person responsible for relief to the victim? Just curious ...

 

[Lex Concord]

Was it the taxpayers or the one that committed the crime that was doing all of the compensating back then? Wasn't the convicted person responsible for relief to the victim? Just curious ...

It was the responsible party....same as in this case.

Like it or not, government does stuff, and takes our money to do it in our name. As far as the Feds are concerned, national defense is one of the few things I believe they should have the power and, therefore, revenue to do. Defense requires training.

There are dozens of programs I would cut (just off the top of my head) before I would want to eliminate use of the Treasury to compensate a fellow citizen harmed by an obvious tort by the government.

Even as a minarchist teetering on the edge of full-blown anarchocapitalism, if we have a government (which implies paying for it), then it should pay when it destroys someone's life.

The big push here to be to limit government in general and, thereby limit the potential for such life-destroying events. Maybe there are better less-populated places to do such training

 

[John Galt]

It was the responsible party....same as in this case.

Like it or not, government does stuff, and takes our money to do it in our name. As far as the Feds are concerned, national defense is one of the few things I believe they should have the power and, therefore, revenue to do. Defense requires training.

There are dozens of programs I would cut (just off the top of my head) before I would want to eliminate use of the Treasury to compensate a fellow citizen harmed by an obvious tort by the government.

Even as a minarchist teetering on the edge of full-blown anarchocapitalism, if we have a government (which implies paying for it), then it should pay when it destroys someone's life.

The big push here to be to limit government in general and, thereby limit the potential for such life-destroying events. Maybe there are better less-populated places to do such training

Not disagreeing with you here Lex, but I wonder what happened to the pilot. My question was leaning towards such instances where a huge net is thrown out in hopes of a payday, i.e. - McDonald's getting sued for millions for hot coffee in the lap of a drive thru customer. Or Kroger (and most employers) having to have a "no employee with firearms" rule due to the possibility of a lawsuit. I'm talking "personal" responsibility more than the bulk of the burden being placed on the employer.

 

[indykid]

Most flyers wil tell you it is the takeoffs and the landings.

Not all Pilots can be The Great Santini, even if going Santini is an option, it may not of been for this pilot.

My Dad and others stayed with a B52, kept it from crashing into the center of a major city and actually averted a crash of any kind, then they were charged with mutiny for doing it.

You never see these things happen outside of bases like a Grand Forks or Bismark. Planes + Population = more death then planes + potato fields.

Planes are like bullets, the owners are responsible for them once they are airborne.

Takeoffs are optional, landing is mandatory.

And planes are not like bullets. Once a bullet leaves the firearm, it travels on one path until it impacts something including the ground after running out of momentum. An aircraft is under the control of a human being. That human does his best to land the aircraft intact and on an approved piece of real estate.

In this case, we don't know what was going on in the cockpit as the pilot tried to control his aircraft. It is possible from his point of view that he had it pointed in a safe direction when he bailed out, only to have the plane veer from the course he set with the unfortunate consequences.

Regardless, the sad facts are that his actions caused the horrible deaths of several people, and our military stood up and took responsibility, an honorable thing to do in such a horrible situation.

 

[Lex Concord]

Not disagreeing with you here Lex, but I wonder what happened to the pilot. My question was leaning towards such instances where a huge net is thrown out in hopes of a payday, i.e. - McDonald's getting sued for millions for hot coffee in the lap of a drive thru customer. Or Kroger (and most employers) having to have a "no employee with firearms" rule due to the possibility of a lawsuit. I'm talking "personal" responsibility more than the bulk of the burden being placed on the employer.

Point taken. Such claims do have a tendency to sniff out deeper pockets.

Case law is evolutionary.

As far as Lt. Neubauer is concerned...Marine pilot in San Diego jet crash will fly again - latimes.com