Propeller Girl

[VolAgent]

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.

Airports are noisy places.

Also, the way the article read, the 200k was offered right away, no negotiations necessary. I'd say the insurance carrier knows that the insured is liable for this, that this isn't the question. I would wager, the insurance company has money and the pilot and owner are effectively broke. The model is going after the only one with money in this situation.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I don't think the insurer thinks they are liable. I'm sure they believe she was a passenger and subject to that limit which is why they quickly offered that amount. They will fight that she was a passenger exiting the airplane when it happened. They will say until she is cleared of the plane she was a passenger. Ticket holders in the terminal are called passengers.

 

[VolAgent]

I don't think the insurer thinks they are liable. I'm sure they believe she was a passenger and subject to that limit which is why they quickly offered that amount. They will fight that she was a passenger exiting the airplane when it happened. They will say until she is cleared of the plane she was a passenger. Ticket holders in the terminal are called passengers.

You're missing part of the problem here. They are saying because she was a passenger, their coverage is limited to the sub-limit. That isn't the same as saying there is no liability. It is the same as a car wreck. You run over a movie star and your limits are 100/300/100. The insurance company walks away at 100k, that doesn't mean that you aren't liable for additional damages, just that their coverage stops at 100k.

 

[RPrunell]

Comparative Negligence?

I understand the McDonalds coffee case, but I fail to see how comparative negligence applies to the propeller incident. Stella was found to be partially responsible for her part in the negligence. However, coffe is a much more familiar and everyday occurrence for most Americans. Have you ever gotten your morning cup of joe cold from Dunkin', or Starbucks unless you asked for an iced coffee? Given the fact that she is an older lady, and undoubtedly had coffee before the burn experience I can see why she would be held accountable for her part of the negligence. However, when it comes to air travel I tend to defer to those in the industry to cue me on what I need to do, and when I need to do it. Obviously the ball was dropped on their end. 1) Propeller running while guests exit. 2) Lack of an indication that the propeller was running to those guests 3) Failure to direct passengers on a safe exit route. Etc. I think comparative negligence should be thrown out, and I would pursue gross negligence on behalf of the airline. Using common sense works both ways and would be a horrible defense on the airlines part. It's a two way street. Yes, humans have common sense and she may or may not have used the best judgement, but common sense also dictates that as a pilot, I kill the engine on the side passengers are loading and unloading.

 

[GoCubsGo]

You're missing part of the problem here. They are saying because she was a passenger, their coverage is limited to the sub-limit. That isn't the same as saying there is no liability. It is the same as a car wreck. You run over a movie star and your limits are 100/300/100. The insurance company walks away at 100k, that doesn't mean that you aren't liable for additional damages, just that their coverage stops at 100k.

I agree they are saying they are liable but only for the sub-limit of their coverage. I never said anything more. The pilot and airline could be liable for more but the insurance company might not be on the hook for that. If the model is suing as a pedestrian not a passenger does the insurer cover injury? Why didn't they have a sub-limit per incident instead of passenger? If the insurer wins that she was a passenger then they are only liable for the 200k. The debate in court is first going to be whether she was a passenger or not. That's my take but I don't really know.

 

[Guest]

well, well, well,

TMZ is saying, she dropped her lawsuit........

Lauren Scruggs Calls Off Insurance War in Propeller Maiming | TMZ.com

 

[VolAgent]

Guess they decided to cough up some more money.

 

[Mr. Bill]

Naw, she just accepted their offer.

Lauren Scruggs: Plane propeller accident model reaches $200k settlement' | Mail Online

 

[rlubnau]

The pilot of this plane was extremely negligent in not pulling the mixture before letting the passenger out of the Cessna. The policy is a $1,000,000 liability limit with a $100,000 passenger sublimit, so the insurance company was generous when it offered and paid out more than the limit. Because the policy does not exclude negligence on the action of the pilot, then the insurance company needs to pay its limit only! Most private aircraft owners are like most personal insurance customers and only buy the lowest priced policy with the lowest sub-limits. This is surprising to me, both as an aviator and an insurance professional, is that most pilots have a lot of assets at risk. What is even more amazing, depending on the pilots hours, and if the pilot is instrument rated, the premium could run as little as $750 per year for that type of plane......so the higher limits would not be that much more expensive.

Due to the lawsuit happy United States, my wife and I have chosen not to allow anyone into our Cherokee unless they are flight instructors or licensed pilots themselves. I can't imagine what my wife would go through with the American Law system if, god forbid, I plant my plane into a house on final approach.

 

[wjw0006]

The pilot of this plane was extremely negligent in not pulling the mixture before letting the passenger out of the Cessna. The policy is a $1,000,000 liability limit with a $100,000 passenger sublimit, so the insurance company was generous when it offered and paid out more than the limit. Because the policy does not exclude negligence on the action of the pilot, then the insurance company needs to pay its limit only! Most private aircraft owners are like most personal insurance customers and only buy the lowest priced policy with the lowest sub-limits. This is surprising to me, both as an aviator and an insurance professional, is that most pilots have a lot of assets at risk. What is even more amazing, depending on the pilots hours, and if the pilot is instrument rated, the premium could run as little as $750 per year for that type of plane......so the higher limits would not be that much more expensive.

Due to the lawsuit happy United States, my wife and I have chosen not to allow anyone into our Cherokee unless they are flight instructors or licensed pilots themselves. I can't imagine what my wife would go through with the American Law system if, god forbid, I plant my plane into a house on final approach.

Lets all remember here that while the model may have not paid proper attention, the owner of the plane/pilot are going to get hammered on this. The reason? All carriers are held to the highest level of care possible. It's does not matter if it was a Delta flight or something small like this. I do not see any comparative negligence applying here on the model. It was the pilot's duty to ensure that she got off the plane safely.