Bingo +1
This matter would be a text book example for a comparative negligence defense. This case reminds me to some degree of the McDonald's scalding coffee incident several years ago.
Bingo +1
This matter would be a text book example for a comparative negligence defense. This case reminds me to some degree of the McDonald's scalding coffee incident several years ago.
- 15,041
Yeah, if only the pilot had the common sense to turn off that propeller. I bet he never does that again, if he can even get hired.
But yes, I would like to hope I would have the common sense to avoid the propeller. I would much prefer someone not put me in the situation to have to need that common sense. And as to the article, I think there are really two questions here. Perhaps the insurance carrier's liability is limited by the policy. I don't see how that will relieve the pilot and the carrier of their liability.
Really, no.
In the McDonald's case there were hundreds of claims of burns prior to Stella Liebeck's. In all seriousness, look at the images of her burns. Unbelieveable. Well done documentary: Hot Coffee. A bit slanted but hey, what isn't these days?
HOT COFFEE, a documentary feature film
How someone of minimal intelligence can "walk" into a propeller is frighteningly stupid. More like walking out into oncoming traffic on a freeway, getting hit by a car, and then wondering why???
The policy language may limit the dollar amount they are responsible for, but the policy limit in no way relieves the carrier and their agent (pilot) of their liability.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am very familar with the Liebeck case. I was only suggesting the two cases are similar insofar as there is an element of comparative negligence. Liebeck's damages were reduced by 20% because the jury determined she shared some responsibility.
In this matter, I believe the injured woman is definitely responsible to some degree. What that degree is, I don't know, but she definitely needed to be more alert and aware of her surroundings..
Last edited:
- 11,996
I think a jury is going to have a hard time with that one too.
Not that I have the time or inclination to research this case law, but I'd be curious what level of standard they would have to be held to.
In the coffee case I don't think anyone things that they could be handed something that would give them second (third?) degree burns. I think that's reasonable.
I don't think anyone could possibly be surprised when they walk into a propeller and end up losing an eye and a hand.
Insurance companies are funny, sometimes they will pay something just to not deal with a mess, but if you fight too hard sometimes you'll end up with nothing.
Adjuster: "This thing is a mess, we could have some liability, the poor girl has had her life severely messed up, it might be cheaper/easier to pay her and we are going to spend that much defending it anyway."
Adjuster after she refuses offer: "Well, she was an *** and our legal department can probably get us out of this because it really was in many ways her fault. Might as well defend it"
Outside counsel: "She wants to get paid for what? $50k and we can probably quash it"
I'm totally theorizing on that, but it's a negotiation and in a way it's like deal or no deal, the more information that comes to light, the possibility of the "prize" going down can increase too.
I feel bad for her though, her fault or not, that sucks.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder about what the actual extent of the responsibility belongs to the pilot? Was this a private plane or was it a commercial flight? Are there any written rules of conduct regarding pilot duties?
Another thought regarding this case is that this was a flight to view Christmas lights. This accident obviously occured at night. Maybe the girl didn't see the props. Perhaps she didn't even know they existed. For all we know she just heard noise and didn't even think this plane had propellers.
- Thread starter
- #17
G
Guest
Guest
Regardless, you WILL hear that engine running, she was probaly turning talking to someone and not paying attention.
You cant tell me, you walk out of the plane, the first thing you see or HEAR is the engine still running, and walk crooked right into a planes propeller. Again, COMMON SENSE has to fall into play somewhere. Unless she is deaf, you WILL hear the engine running.
Not to be shitty, but it would be awesome to sit on on the jury for this case.
RBA, your points are well taken. In fact, my mantra to my kids ever since I can remember has been there are only two rules you have to remember:
1. Pay attention
2. Follow directions
When someone effs up, it is because they didn't follow one of the 2 simple rules. In this case it appears she may have violated both rules.
However, despite her lack of common sense and inability to follow a couple of simple rules there may be some circumstances in play that shifts some of the blame of this tradgedy elsewhere.
This is what discovery and the entire litigation process is all about. The lawyers will duke it out and regardless of the outcome there will be increased loss ratios and additional fuel for a premium increase. The lawyers will profit and the insurance industry takes yet another PR hit.
- 1,931
From what I read the issue they will debate is whether she was still a passenger when it happened. The 200k limit is on passengers. The model contends that she was no longer a passenger as she was completely off the plane and not subject to the 200k limit on passengers.
"According to Reuters, Scruggs was offered $200,000 by the two insurance polcies that cover the airplane and the pilot. Both policies have a limit of $1 million per incident, along with a sub-limit of $100,000 per passenger, says the report. Scruggs believes she is due much more than the amount they are willing to offer. In her lawsuit, Scruggs notes that she does not agree with the interpretation of the word “passenger” by the insurer, Aggressive Insurance Services, defined by the company as “any person, other than the pilot, who is in the Aircraft or getting in or out of it.”
According to Scruggs' suit, she had already exited the plane and was on the tarmac when she walked into the plane's propeller. She argues she was not in contact with the aircraft and wasn't “getting out” of it when the accident took place, thus she believes she is entitled to something nearer the $1 million limit on each policy, reports Reuters.
The insurance company disagrees and believes that walking away from the plane is part of exiting the aircraft."
"According to Reuters, Scruggs was offered $200,000 by the two insurance polcies that cover the airplane and the pilot. Both policies have a limit of $1 million per incident, along with a sub-limit of $100,000 per passenger, says the report. Scruggs believes she is due much more than the amount they are willing to offer. In her lawsuit, Scruggs notes that she does not agree with the interpretation of the word “passenger” by the insurer, Aggressive Insurance Services, defined by the company as “any person, other than the pilot, who is in the Aircraft or getting in or out of it.”
According to Scruggs' suit, she had already exited the plane and was on the tarmac when she walked into the plane's propeller. She argues she was not in contact with the aircraft and wasn't “getting out” of it when the accident took place, thus she believes she is entitled to something nearer the $1 million limit on each policy, reports Reuters.
The insurance company disagrees and believes that walking away from the plane is part of exiting the aircraft."
Last edited:
- 14,809
I have not flown in many small planes but a high school friend of mine's dad had one and I went up twice. No one got out of that plane when we landed until the prop stopped spinning.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Education and Training for Medicaid Eligibility for Insurance Agents- Latest: Dale M Krause
-
-