You are the one arguing?
My point is that you can be sued, win, and still lose a lot of money!
Are you a lawyer?
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 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Tom;
So what is the point of the argument now? Is it that Boonah Gliding Club
should be immune from lawsuits?
On Tue, 17 May 2011, tom claffey wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> I know and understand the case well!
> It seems you miss my point, this case was eventually found in favour of the
> club and the club was all OK.
> Fine you would think, however it cost them about $80K to that point and had
> to sell gliders to pay the bill!
> 15 years or so later they are still affected.
>
> The bottom of the harbour would be a start!
> Tom
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Peter F Bradshaw <p...@exadios.com>
> To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
>
> Hi Tom;
>
> I do not know about the Boonah case but I suspect that logic did win in
> that case and either you did not understand it or it dictated an result
> with which you do not agree.
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, tom claffey wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
>
> Cheers
>
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
