Apartment owner sueing Lidle's family

[HumnHilghtFreel]

Link Here

Apparently, the guy suing has a history of being a jerk.


http://deadspin.com/sports/baseball/...ist-241011.php A choice word or two in the link

[Redsland]

The NTSB's final report about the crash stated that the investigation could not determine who was at the controls of the plane. Therefore, it's impossible to say who was at fault.

[registerthis]

Surely insurance would cover whatever damages were caused by the plane. I wonder why he feels a lawsuit is necessary.

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by registerthis

Surely insurance would cover whatever damages were caused by the plane. I wonder why he feels a lawsuit is necessary.

Maybe he doesn't feel it's necessary and simply wants to cash in.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by paintmered

Maybe he doesn't feel it's necessary and simply wants to cash in.

Or get a little attention.

Sounds like he's a peach of a guy.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Maybe he doesn't feel it's necessary and simply wants to cash in.

Yep. Not everyday that a multi-millionaire crashes into your apartment. I am sure Mr. Dentist realizes that Lidle was very rich and probably has heard that his widow got a nice life insurance settlement.

Rob Zombie once wrote a song tiled "Scum of the Earth". I think this guy can have his name and picture placed next to this song. It seems appropriate to me.

[remdog]

Big deal. So he's sueing. In today's world it would be more surprising that he wasn't. Maybe he feels he's endured more 'pain and suffering' than the insurance is willing to pay for so he's going to court.

Rem

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by Redsland

The NTSB's final report about the crash stated that the investigation could not determine who was at the controls of the plane. Therefore, it's impossible to say who was at fault.

If so, suit should be filed against anyone who may have been at the controls.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

If so, suit should be filed against anyone who may have been at the controls.

Funny that he isn't suing the family of the flight instructer. Surely he isn't suing Lidle's family because they have deep pockets?

[UKFlounder]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Funny that he isn't suing the family of the flight instructer. Surely he isn't suing Lidle's family because they have deep pockets?

That's the best point made against this suit and a very good question to ask.

[WMR]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Funny that he isn't suing the family of the flight instructer. Surely he isn't suing Lidle's family because they have deep pockets?

Or it may be that the flight instructor's contract with Lidle specifically stated that the contractor assumed all potential future liabilities for any accident that occurred while he was in Lidle's employ.

We don't have anywhere close to enough facts to draw conclusions as to whether or not the apartment owner is 'in the right' for filing his suit, but RB's points are an excellent summation of what could be going on here.

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

If so, suit should be filed against anyone who may have been at the controls.

Actually, the suit should be filed against who owned the plane, Lidle. If you own a car, and let someone drive it, and they are in a wreck, the car is covered by YOUR insurance company. I assume the samething goes for airplanes.

This was ruled as pilot error. They forgot to fill the plane with gas before take off, if my memory is correct.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by George Foster

Actually, the suit should be filed against who owned the plane, Lidle. If you own a car, and let someone drive it, and they are in a wreck, the car is covered by YOUR insurance company. I assume the samething goes for airplanes.

This was ruled as pilot error. They forgot to fill the plane with gas before take off, if my memory is correct.

Actually, the suit should be filed against whoever may have been negligent or otherwise at fault. Again, I am applying W. Va. law here, since it is where I practice, but, assuming the state law to be applied is similar to that of W. Va., you generally should name as defendants anyone whom you have a good faith basis to assert may be liable.
With all respect, George is flat out wrong in his implied assertion that if there is an automoblie accident the person to sue is the owner of the car, not the driver. Yes, in W. Va., the primary duty to defend generally rests with the insurer of the car, not the insurer of the negligent driver-----but you don't sue the insurance company, you sue the negligent party.
If you only sue the owner, then you will need to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the owner was guilty of neglegent trustment or some other act of negligence which should make the owner legally responsible for the driver's negligent driving, and you then still have to prove that the driver was negligent.
Sue the driver directly, and negligent entrustment is not an issue, at least with regard to him or her--just carry your burden of proving that the driver was at fault. Yes, the driver will just be defended by the owner's insurer, but secondary coverage will also be owed by the driver's insurer.
There is also the possibility that coverage under the owner's policy may be limited for the driver. For example, I have a case right now where the alleged negligent driver, son of the owner, was expressly excluded from coverage under the owner's policy. The owner's insurer therefore only has to arguably provide state minimum limits of $20,000 rather than the normal policy limits of $100,000. In this case the alleged negligent driver; his father, the vehicle owner; and his alleged employer have all been sued over the motor vehicle accident. The primary duty to defend rests first with the insurer of the owner, and then with the insurer of the driver. The alleged employer has denied that the driver was its employee or agent, but has its own coverage. Then there is the insurer who provided underinsurance coverage to the injured party himself.
Again, you should name as defendants anyone whom you have a good faith basis to assert may be liable.

[Redsland]

Originally Posted by George Foster

They forgot to fill the plane with gas before take off, if my memory is correct.

Incorrect. There was plenty of fuel, as the fire and damage would attest. The NTSB ruled that the wind pushed the plane toward the building, and the pilot (whomever that might have been) falied to compensate.

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by Redsland

Incorrect. There was plenty of fuel, as the fire and damage would attest. The NTSB ruled that the wind pushed the plane toward the building, and the pilot (whomever that might have been) falied to compensate.

"

"While early reports had Lidle's plane sending out a fuel-related distress call, later investigation proved that false. There was no call."

quote form howstuffworks.com

.....I knew I read it somewhere, I did not know they changed their story.