From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: ok,, enough,, by why the non standard installation
To: lml
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:34:46 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1347436@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <44EE0C3F.9090500@regandesigns.com>
References: <44EE0C3F.9090500@regandesigns.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Posted for Brent Regan <brent@regandesigns.com>:

  Craig M. Blitzer Esq. writes
  
  " I do however as a lawyer, take personal issue with your statement that
Lawyers sue people to make a living. "
  
  I see, so all those ads on TV where personal injury attorneys troll for
clients are actually public service announcements done for purely altruistic
reasons. Give me a break!
  
  The General aviation industry has been crippled by aggressive lawyering. It
would be dead save for legislation that limited liability. Funny how GA
manufacturers rebounded after liability limits were enacted. No cause and
effect there.
  
  Lawyers have the ability to suspend their personal morals in order to effect
a "vigorous defense". Unfortunately there is no indicator as to when their
moral compass is active or strapped, so, like a handgun where you must always
assume it is loaded, when dealing with lawyers you must always assume they are
serving an interest that is not yours and not the full truth.
  
  I fully appreciate that we need lawyers who can defend criminals with the
assumption of innocence in criminal court. Unfortunately this has morphed in
the civil courts to the assumption of injury. This leads to an attitude that
no matter what foolish and unwise action is undertaken, if there is an injury
, actual or perceived, some else is at fault. The concept of personal
responsibility has been sacrificed at the alter of punitive damages. Guns kill
people after spoons have made them fat and a restaurant is negligent if they
serve hot coffee that is .... well ... hot.
  
  The corollary to the "someone else is at fault" assumption is that the 
safety
of the individual is the responsibility of a third party. Arguments in favor
of this have been presented on this very list. "It is the responsibility of
Lancair to change the flight characteristics of the design in order to improve
safety!" . Never mind that I selected the components, built the kit, did the
test flights and then in a "Hey Earl, watch this!" moment I stalled the plane
and perished. It wasn't MY fault but rather the fault of the engine or vacuum
pump or propeller or ELT or whoever else has deep pockets filled with
Franklins. Once I have accepted that someone else is responsible for my fate
then I certainly don't have to worry about it myself, do I?
  
  I would cite the future case of Dumbfart v. State BAR Association (aka BAR
ASS.) where the argument presented to the jury is that overly aggressive
lawyers in civil actions have deliberately and repeatedly made the argument
that others, not the poor hapless PIC, are responsible for the safety of the
PIC, his passengers and innocent people on the ground and that this lead to
the reasonable conclusion, by the PIC, that safety was not his concern, which
in turn resulted in the tragic accident.  Given that personal injury
attorneys, as a group, promoted this false assumption for financial gain, the
plaintiffs are asking for actual and punitive damages against all personal
injury attorneys in this first ever "class responsibility" law suit. The jury
is expected to be in deliberations for only 3 to 5 seconds so that they don't
miss the finale of "Singing Celebrities Dance with American Idols for
Survival".
  
  Don't think this so remote a possibility. Some lawyers have already 
developed
a taste for shark meat as evidenced by the availability of malpractice
insurance for attorneys.
  
  I do have a simple fix. After the plaintiff and council have been awarded
actual damages and costs, have the punitive award go to the general fund of
the state rather than the defendant and counsel.  No more Lotto jackpots.
Plaintiffs get compensation for actual injury, the defendant gets punished to
a suitable degree, the state has addition funds to serve the public good and
lawyers will do a better job of prescreening cases (OK, maybe I am stretching
the part about  the state serving the public good).
  
  I am sure that I have enraged all attorneys everywhere, but I am a fool and 
a
wise man won't argue with a fool lest he be judged a fool too.
  
  Wise man.... yeh right.
  
  Regards
  Brent Regan
  
  
[Gentlemen... this is starting to get a bit far afield from the published 
intent of the LML... I would prefer that we cease the discussion of the legal 
profession at large, and get back to less peripherally related Lancair topics. 
 The guidelines for what is and is not acceptable content for the LML is 
pretty well outlined in the Users' Guide on the LML website.  If you have any 
doubts about the propriety of a particuler post for inclusion here, I suggest 
you avail yourselves of that resource.  Just go to 
www.lancaironline.net/maillist.html and select the Users' Guide link from the 
top of the menu on the left side of the page.  Thanks....   <Marv>    ]