Family awarded $17.8 Million after marine jet crash

[CarmelHP]

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.

The "McDonald's case" is the biggest example of puffery pushed by insurance lobbyists relying on public ignorance and gullibility. The coffee served was extraordinarily hot, much hotter than would normally be served. Others had been injured previously and complaints were ignored, the plaintiff suffered 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, further lesser burns over 16% of her body, required skin grafts, and lost 20% of her body weight while hospitalized. McDonald's refused to settle for the $20,000 in medical expenses and lost wages requested and offered her $800. After refusing to negotiate with the plaintiff, McDonald's was sued and the plaintiff was awarded $640,000, but later settled for an undisclosed amount less that $600,000 to avoid further appeals. Of course many people never sue or get any award despite clear liability. But the insurance lobby has spun its story well and never bothers with any actual details.

 

[John Galt]

The "McDonald's case" is the biggest example of puffery pushed by insurance lobbyists relying on public ignorance and gullibility. The coffee served was extraordinarily hot, much hotter than would normally be served. Others had been injured previously and complaints were ignored, the plaintiff suffered 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, further lesser burns over 16% of her body, required skin grafts, and lost 20% of her body weight while hospitalized. McDonald's refused to settle for the $20,000 in medical expenses and lost wages requested and offered her $800. After refusing to negotiate with the plaintiff, McDonald's was sued and the plaintiff was awarded $640,000, but later settled for an undisclosed amount less that $600,000 to avoid further appeals. Of course many people never sue or get any award despite clear liability. But the insurance lobby has spun its story well and never bothers with any actual details.

What is extraordinarily hot? Does the government determine what is "extraordinarily" hot so that now we can have a level of measurement that, if exceeded, entitles one to compensation if they do something stupid? Coffee is hot and meant to be hot. Some people like very hot coffee, some people like ice coffee. Hot things tend to burn. When you put something, that a rational person knows can cause injury, in your lap, while driving, does that not infer a level of responsibility?

 

[jblomenberg16]

I remember reading about that accident. I agree that the responsibility for the accident lies with the Marine Corps. I truly feel sorry for the man that lost everything.

What I would be curious to know is how the monetary award was calculated. Value cannot be placed on a human life. Clearly the award was more than the material value of his property and possessions. Is there additional compensation including for potential lost wages, pyschiatric treatments etc?

 

[Lex Concord]

What is extraordinarily hot? Does the government determine what is "extraordinarily" hot so that now we can have a level of measurement that, if exceeded, entitles one to compensation if they do something stupid? Coffee is hot and meant to be hot. Some people like very hot coffee, some people like ice coffee. Hot things tend to burn. When you put something, that a rational person knows can cause injury, in your lap, while driving, does that not infer a level of responsibility?

In theory, yes.

In court, not always.

 

[Zoub]

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.

Takeoffs are not optional, they are an order. A decision to launch was made, at that point it is not optional for the Pilot, he is part of the projectile.

No one cares what flight path an unmanned negligent bullet or plane traveled on before it killed their child or family. Both are unmanned at impact. Some bullets even bounce straight back off a steel plate and hit the actual shooter or one standing near him. The end result is what is actionable. The flight path of either is inconsequential prior to a negligent outcome.

The Pilot is part of the plane, the Govt is responsible for both, jointly or severally, even if they never leave the ground. The Pilot is not relevant to the suit. He does not own the Plane and he does not sign his payroll checks. A Govt. owned plane killed Citizens. One the Pilot was no longer in contact with when it hit. Just like a bullet, both started on their paths based on a chain of human made decisions.

Now, you can argue his actions may have been influenced by the fact he may have felt events prior to the crash might have a negative impact on his career, that is for another suit or a Military investigation.

Faulty Pilot vs Faulty Plane, the documented history of each, that is a whole other topic.

Semantics. A family burned to death by a jet crash and fuel fire.

 

[CarmelHP]

What is extraordinarily hot? Does the government determine what is "extraordinarily" hot so that now we can have a level of measurement that, if exceeded, entitles one to compensation if they do something stupid? Coffee is hot and meant to be hot. Some people like very hot coffee, some people like ice coffee. Hot things tend to burn. When you put something, that a rational person knows can cause injury, in your lap, while driving, does that not infer a level of responsibility?

40 degrees hotter than normal serving temperatures. At the temperature it was served it would cause 3rd degree burns too rapidly to react, at the normal temperature 20 seconds would have been gained in reaction time which would have allowed removing the scalding material before 3rd degree burns occurred. There had been other injuries and complaints, they knew something was wrong. And your question doesn't address any of the other fallacies your post contained. A jury heard the evidence and decided fault. Before you jump to the usual practice of condemning juries in these types of arguments, we let juries send people to prison and death row. And, in reference to the OP, do you think planes are built to fly into houses?

 

[John Galt]

40 degrees hotter than normal serving temperatures. At the temperature it was served it would cause 3rd degree burns too rapidly to react, at the normal temperature 20 seconds would have been gained in reaction time which would have allowed removing the scalding material before 3rd degree burns occurred. There had been other injuries and complaints, they knew something was wrong. And your question doesn't address any of the other fallacies your post contained. A jury heard the evidence and decided fault. Before you jump to the usual practice of condemning juries in these types of arguments, we let juries send people to prison and death row. And, in reference to the OP, do you think planes are built to fly into houses?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the McDonald's case. It started as the person suing for several million dollars over a product that is known to be hot and is served in containers with warnings all over it, suggesting caution, and then placing it in her lap while driving, resulting in an injury that every reasonable person should be able to foresee, and who was also warned by the big "Caution: contents HOT" on the side of the cup (put on there I'm sure in response to a previous lawsuit over lack of common sense).
And no, I don't think planes are built to fly into houses. I believe they are built to be flown be individuals assuming responsibility for the operation of them.

 

[CarmelHP]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the McDonald's case. It started as the person suing for several million dollars over a product that is known to be hot and is served in containers with warnings all over it, suggesting caution, and then placing it in her lap while driving, resulting in an injury that every reasonable person should be able to foresee, and who was also warned by the big "Caution: contents HOT" on the side of the cup (put on there I'm sure in response to a previous lawsuit over lack of common sense).
And no, I don't think planes are built to fly into houses. I believe they are built to be flown be individuals assuming responsibility for the operation of them.

Except it didn't start as a person suing for millions, not even hundreds of thousands. $20,000 was the request for compensation from McDonald's, and the jury saw and judged ALL the evidence and assigned responsibility. In the OP, planes sent out and owned by a government with pilots trained by the government and the government assumed responsibility after a family was wiped out. Apparently you see any compensation as a problem, or believe that only you are fit to judge the amount. We'll disagree.