Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area.
Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug
pilot sued after the wings came off the tug!
They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it!
Tom
________________________________
From: Peter F Bradshaw <p...@exadios.com>
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
<aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Mike;
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote:
> At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote:
> >Hi Ron;
> >
> >A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that
> >lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit.
>
> Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the
> possibility in similar situations.
Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument
more dignity than it deserves.
>
> I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. "So are you telling the
> Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively
> checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?".
The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged
correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging
in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in
law and in fact.
I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody
else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft
type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people
who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular
aircraft type.
>
> It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is
> going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend
> with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a
> coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or
> herself and find yourself on a criminal charge.
What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to
criminal proceedings?
The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the
idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room,
close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark.
The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take
risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at
any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their
case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable
manner.
Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent
and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this
paradigm.
>
> Mike
> Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978
> phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
> fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
> cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
>
> email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com
> website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
>
Cheers
--
Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there).
Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com
"I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to
keep us guessing." - Sam Kekovich.
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
