The Other Side Of The Coin

Driving by all the annoying billboards of lawyers wanting to sue trucking companies, I got to thinking that there is an opposite scenario.

So if there is an accident, truck to car or truck to truck, etc., and it’s not the fault of Driver A, does driver A’s company go after the at fault party as hard as the liability lawyers go after Driver A and his company if Driver A was at fault?

If Driver A is at fault in an accident, the opposing lawyer is not going to be content with just getting the damages repaired, medical bills paid, etc., that lawyer is going to want big money in addition to the actual physical damage. So if Driver A is without fault, perhaps even injured himself, does his company turn the tables and try to get a big settlement or judgement from the at fault party?

That's a good question. I'm guessing that the majority of a nuclear lawsuit is between lawyer fees and medical bills due to severe injury or death.

That being said, it's obviously much easier for a truck to do that kind of damage than a car. I mean, if a car hit a truck they would do much more damage to themselves.

I think it has more to do with insurance limits.

As an example, that small aircraft that tried an emergency landing on a highway in NC last week, rear ended a truck and overturned both the truck and trailer. The pilot no doubt had liability insurance, but I bet the trucking company has lawyers all over that. It would be interesting to find out if a lawsuit has already been filed.

It's all about the benjamins. In Washington the insurance minimums for a motorist are:

$25,000 bodily injury per person $50,000 bodily injury per accident $10,000 property damage per accident

Most commercial policies have $1M in general liability.

Need more? No problem - a trucking company of moderate size owns trucks, trailers, maintenance facilities and drop yards. If the damages awarded at trial exceed the insurance limit they're all fair game. Now, the 20-something pothead who hit you in his 2001 Kia with 300,000 miles has (had) the Kia, his bong collection and a few pairs of Birchenstocks and other clothing items stored his abode in his parent's basement. You may not get the full $100 million from the trucking company but you won't even cover your filing fees going after the typical 20-something.

It would be interesting to find out if a lawsuit has already been filed.

Not yet. The accident is still being investigated by the FAA. Who gets sued and for how much won't be decided until after the FAA files their report on the accident.

The, "small plane" was actually a Beechcraft Baron G58. The base model starts at $1.5 million. The pilot was a commercial pilot (the aviation version of a CDL). Just like a company driver doesn't need to insure his employer's truck a company pilot doesn't need to insure his employer's plane. Early indications point to a mechanical failure on the aircraft. The defendant will be determined by what failed and why.

If the plane was not being maintained according to Beechcraft's service schedule for the plane the plane's owner (who was probably the pilot's employer) will be sued.

If the mechanic who serviced the plane did something incorrectly the mechanic and the company he works for may be liable.

If a part was not manufactured to the correct standards and that part caused the accident the part's manufacturer will be sued.

If there was an issue with Beechcraft's design of the aircraft (not likely since the Baron 58 has been around since 1969) Beechcraft will be sued.

A pilot has limited options when a mechanical failure occurs. If a pilot survives an accident they generally aren't penalized unless the accident was caused by pilot error.

It would be interesting to find out if a lawsuit has already been filed.

Not yet. The accident is still being investigated by the FAA. Who gets sued and for how much won't be decided until after the FAA files their report on the accident.

The, "small plane" was actually a Beechcraft Baron G58. The base model starts at $1.5 million. The pilot was a commercial pilot (the aviation version of a CDL). Just like a company driver doesn't need to insure his employer's truck a company pilot doesn't need to insure his employer's plane. Early indications point to a mechanical failure on the aircraft. The defendant will be determined by what failed and why.

If the plane was not being maintained according to Beechcraft's service schedule for the plane the plane's owner (who was probably the pilot's employer) will be sued.

If the mechanic who serviced the plane did something incorrectly the mechanic and the company he works for may be liable.

If a part was not manufactured to the correct standards and that part caused the accident the part's manufacturer will be sued.

If there was an issue with Beechcraft's design of the aircraft (not likely since the Baron 58 has been around since 1969) Beechcraft will be sued.

A pilot has limited options when a mechanical failure occurs. If a pilot survives an accident they generally aren't penalized unless the accident was caused by pilot error.

I've GOTTA ask, Mr. Pearl . . . are you a pilot, or .. just dabble in avionics ?!?!? ^^^ That's some really amazing stuff right there. I'm a 'Vasa Aviation' and 'Mentour Pilot' junkie myself .....nothing CLOSE to your knowledge!

Thanks for sharing, I'm following!

~ Anne ~

I've GOTTA ask, Mr. Pearl . . . are you a pilot...

Yes. Private pilot working on my commercial rating.

I've GOTTA ask, Mr. Pearl . . . are you a pilot...

Yes. Private pilot working on my commercial rating.

Awesome!!!! Congrats! I'd be willing to check out any YouTube channel you might have, or suggest ... :)

I missed my calling; always wanted to be an ATC'er myself.

Thanks!

~ Anne ~