Reply
Thu 8 Jan, 2009 02:49 pm
Just were done reading my local paper only to be informed that lawyers are going to be suing Grumman for not designing a seaplane correctly for it intended use. As a wing did break off on takeoff one fine Miami morning killing 20 people you would assume that for once the lawyers might had a point.
The only problem is the seaplane in question had been in service in a salt-water environment for 58 years and as a class these seaplanes had an outstanding safety record.
Somehow the idea that after a seaplane had been able to be in almost constant service for 58 years in salt water and a group of lawyers have the nerve to go into court with this silly claim that the accident is the fault of a long dead design team and a design fault is insulting.
Add to this the fact that the engines were replaced a few years before with far more powerful ones placing more stress on the wings that the aircraft design team could not had foreseen from half a century in the past or that the blame had already been place firmly on the airline maintaining the seaplane by the Federal government, and you end up with a lawsuit that is an outrage in my opinion.
@BillRM,
This is very easily explained, Bill.
The desire to try to get easy money can do very, very strange things to human beings...and despite possible evidence to the contrary, lawyers are human beings.
@BillRM,
Pilot error should not be discounted as one of the possible reasons of the crash. The plane's 58 years of unblemished record is enough to prove its mechanical capabilities.
Plaintiffs will endeavor to get a settlement
without trying the case.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace