A question concerning litigation

[CO_Skymaster]

I've seen several small aircraft accidents in the news and it started me thinking about the law suits against aircraft companies and engine manufactures when something goes wrong (even when the machine is found to be working). Are the litigations in this case, the actual family sueing the companies? Or is it lawyers bring cases against the company in the families name (even if the family doesn't want it).

I've been a pilot for many years and try to check any aircraft I fly, but I know there is a risk when I fly that something can go wrong. I wouldn't want my family sueing just for the hell of it.

Just food for thought,

Karl

[tropical]

In legal speak "Throw as much shit against the wall and see what sticks".

This is a lawyer tactic. Sue the airframe manufacturer, the engine builder, the prop company, the avionics, etc, etc....

The different companies have "product liability" insurance. The Insurance company will evaluate the case as to cost to defend, etc. The lawyers know most Insurance companies will "settle out of court" rather than pay the cost to litigate.

For the Plaintiff's attorney it's the matter of filing court documents. Look at it as fishing, you throw out many lines and hope you reel something back in.

This is why the legal system in the US is so screwed up. The bottom dwelling lawyers know all they have to do is file court documents and usually they'll get a settlement.

If this country ever gets true tort reform it will end the lawyers and their trivial lawsuits. When the loser has to pay they will think twice before filing.

[CO_Skymaster]

Wow,

That is truly messed up.

I doubt we will see much changed since our govenment is made up of mostly lawyers, who have very little interest in stopping the practice. It may be many of them got their careers started doing the same thing.

Karl

[Ernie Martin]

But we haven't answered Karl's basic question: can the lawyer sue without a plaintiff who suffered damages? And I think the basic answer is NO (or perhaps better, since any fool can sue, it will get dismissed for lack of standing very quickly and at little or no cost to the defendants).

As an example, say only one party suffered damages (death, injury or financial) and that party and his/her estate, legal representatives, heirs, successors, etc., all decide not to sue, then an attorney can't legitimately bring suit. Of course, the attorney may try to find someone adversely affected (e.g., distant relative, the company that employed a key employee killed in the accident) and use that entity as a plaintiff, but without a plaintiff who suffered damages there is no standing.

Ernie

P.S. I'm not an attorney but spent many years running companies or contract departments, with attorneys working for me. If I'm wrong here and there is some esoteric procedure by which an attorney without suffering plaintiffs can successfully sue, please correct this post.

[tropical]

And why wouldn't the Plaintiffs take Council's "advise" and enjoin the suit?

Are you trying to say the average American will suddenly have a "good heart" and not bring litigation?

US culture has ingrained among the people that accidents=BIG BUCK Payouts! Look at all the billboards and TV ads where the scumbag, er I mean Lawyer ask "Have you been hurt in an accident?" Do you honestly believe he's soliciting clients because he is concerned for the injured person's well being?

[stackj]

Kevin (or is it Keven?) Where are you?