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?

[Ernie Martin]

Yes, legal counsel can convince families to sue, but that wasn't the question. Karl asked whether lawyers can "bring cases against the company in the families name even if the family doesn't want it." But if the families insist on not suing and no one else suffered damages, then I stand by my answer that no one has standing to sue.

Ernie

[Skymaster337B]

You are right. Lawyers can't sue unless they have some one to sue on behalf of. But there's never a shortage of willing accomplices. But, lawyers can sue on behalf of a group of people like a class action law suit...very dirty if you ask me.

[CO_Skymaster]

Thank you to all for your answers. Thinking about my own situation, I wouldn't sue (if I'm still alive), but I've never told anyone in my family not to do so. It also sounds like it could be any family member (like a cousin) who could work with a lawyer to bring litigation. Once that process has started, it's as Tropical has said, court papers are filed against multiple people to see what will hold up.

Thanks for the insight,

Karl

[N5ZX]

The American dream used to be "WHAT CAN I DO....to become successful?"

Regrettably, In the past 60 years it has become "WHO CAN I SUE... to get rich?"

Do we blame businesses for producing crap with known or probable liability issues and thus create the arguement of "Someone has to keep them in check."

Do we blame the plantiff "Victims" who seek as much compensation as they can possibly squeeze out of the respondant, because cash makes everything feel better....and it "deters shoddy workmanship (or engineering)"...theoretically. They're still making cigarettes....so that theory must have some holes in it.

Do we blame mercenary lawyers willing to sling rampant claims agianst the courts to see what sticks (or settles with "go away money")

Do we blame the courts for being reluctant to issue summary judgements and harshly penalize frivolous suits...or conversely for failing to follow through on prior judgements?

Do we blame the Federal Trade Commission that allows businesses to be structured so that no INDIVIDUAL is actually accountable and responcible for anything.....everything is a shell game and if the stakes get too big, you can always hide behind bankruptcy protection and become virtually untouchable.

Do we blame insurance companies who fight us tooth and nail for a TAX DEDUCTABLE pay-out for a windshield claim, but roll-over effortlessly to dole out settlement pay-offs...and continue to insure the respondent....because they keep paying their principal. No insurance...no protection...less risk-taking.

Or do we blame an apathetic polulation who doesnt give a (darn) cuz they dont think it effects them and are exponentially more interested in voting for the next IDOL than the next legislator.

In my humble opinion, the problems stems back about 60 years ago when rights started to be interpreted as entitlements. And the freedoms that should never be taken from anyone were twisted into monitary mardi-gras beads that were handed out for free.

I'm only 40. But I am saddened by the abundantly evident demise of America. The only salvation I can see is a much more rigid system that our "Sit-com hypnotized" populace would never tolerate. The sacrifices that our preceeding generations made are considered abominable...not heroic.

Consider for a moment a child that is given everything they want. We all know someones spoiled brat that just wants more and more and has no clue how to EARN anything. Now imagine that spoiled brat as a teenager....we all know one. Now imagine that spoiled brat as a parent....they're out there. Now imagine that spoiled brat as a legislator making the laws that govern us....despite our ability to think for ourselves and take responcibility for our own actions.

Sure, it can be argued that the safety mechanism that keeps that from happening is the supreme common sense of the voters....they'll save us. Unlikely.

In short, a person (or their attorney) needs "standing" to file suit. Defining that "standing" is an art in itself. Are they filing suit on behalf of the "victim"? On behalf of those physically injured? On behalf of the family for their loss, the insurance company or finance company for their loss? Or perhaps they are the noble sort that are suing to protect the general public from future hazards that may fall from the sky and kill them...or hurt them...or scare them...or in some way inconvenience them....and thus give them some future "standing"

Tort reform is a nice concept....But it only addresses a small part of the problem. And if you only muzzle one dog in the fight...all you do is give the other dogs a better bite. the "system" is a sloppy balance. the only solution is to keep ALL aspects even in the fight. And to do that, but still effect a meaningful change, you have to change how the individual perceives the world around them and what they should expect FROM it and FOR it. But so long as they have the hope of a courtroom lottery making them wealthy...the zombies will just keep pulling the lever and hoping for their jackpot.

The path of least resistance will ALWAYS win in the end. Simple physics applies to psychology (and sociology) as well.

At least thats my observation. I would be elated to be wrong.

Cole