Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ph90702

Vanessa Bryant Suing Pilot

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bsubroncochick said:

Didn’t the pilot die in the crash? So who is she suing? His family? I hope not.

I believe she is suing the helicopter company because of the pilots negligence.  Not the actual pilot or his family.  

Edit.  Guess I was wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/thr-esq/vanessa-bryant-sues-helicopter-operator-wrongful-death-crash-killed-kobe-1280770

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wyobraska said:

I believe she is suing the helicopter company because of the pilots negligence.  Not the actual pilot or his family.  

Edit.  Guess I was wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/thr-esq/vanessa-bryant-sues-helicopter-operator-wrongful-death-crash-killed-kobe-1280770

I hope she wins against the company but I also hope the case against the family of the pilot gets tossed.  There’s no reason for her to financially ruin that family over this.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mugtang said:

I hope she wins against the company but I also hope the case against the family of the pilot gets tossed.  There’s no reason for her to financially ruin that family over this.  

I wonder if you bring a suit to bring out any evidence from those named in the suit and then narrow the actual suit to the company after the facts are out.

Resident lawyers could tell me if I am wrong here.

 

I have seen some folks bashing Vanessa as trying to cash in on the demise, and I don't think it is a just reaction.  If there is a fault, is it not fair to do this?  Maybe it is an insurance thing, or perhaps the suit will aid in any suit that could have been brought on the Bryant estate.  I seriously doubt Vanessa is looking to profit off her daughter and husband's death so callously.  But I like to give the benefit of the doubt that not every human is terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

I wonder if you bring a suit to bring out any evidence from those named in the suit and then narrow the actual suit to the company after the facts are out.

Resident lawyers could tell me if I am wrong here.

 

I have seen some folks bashing Vanessa as trying to cash in on the demise, and I don't think it is a just reaction.  If there is a fault, is it not fair to do this?  Maybe it is an insurance thing, or perhaps the suit will aid in any suit that could have been brought on the Bryant estate.  I seriously doubt Vanessa is looking to profit off her daughter and husband's death so callously.  But I like to give the benefit of the doubt that not every human is terrible.

You may be right and I hope so.  I just hope she’s not going after the family for money, even life insurance money on the pilot.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FAA hasn’t even released their final report. Given that, I’m not sure why she would file a suit now. Second I don’t believe she is after the pilots estate. 

 

Third, If I’m the opposing lawyer, I’d file a change of venue, someplace out of socal. There’s just no way there would be fair proceedings around here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, the pilot is responsible for the safety of its passengers, but there’s always an implied increase in risk when flying in bad conditions even if doing everything by the book. It’s also Kobe’s job to protect his family and friends, and if there’s too much risk and he knew other choppers were grounded, he never should have let that thing take off with anyone in it. If he were to smell alcohol on a pilot, it would be his duty to ground the chopper due to the risk of an impaired pilot. The weather can also impair a pilot. 

So my question is, how could Kobe be OK with a pilot flying 186 mph in those conditions?  He’s a smart guy and knew the danger/risk they were in flying at that speed. They had no time to correct their path because of their speed. Had the pilot realized they were too low, surely the radar system would’ve sounded the danger and at a slower spee, it could’ve been corrected. I hope she’s after answers and lessons to be learned from this terrible loss, not money. How much money do you need? His net worth is $600 million, and he will continue to bring in 8 digit money indefinitely. The pilot paid the ultimate price for his mistake, and his family didn’t do anything wrong and have had to deal with their loss. Now get slammed with a financial loss? That’s BS. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

I wonder if you bring a suit to bring out any evidence from those named in the suit and then narrow the actual suit to the company after the facts are out.

Resident lawyers could tell me if I am wrong here.

 

I have seen some folks bashing Vanessa as trying to cash in on the demise, and I don't think it is a just reaction.  If there is a fault, is it not fair to do this?  Maybe it is an insurance thing, or perhaps the suit will aid in any suit that could have been brought on the Bryant estate.  I seriously doubt Vanessa is looking to profit off her daughter and husband's death so callously.  But I like to give the benefit of the doubt that not every human is terrible.

No, you would generally keep both parties in the suit absent settlement; although the aim would be to collect from the employer's insurance carrier.  The allegations appear to be that the pilot was negligent in his actions and thus his potential liability.  The employer would then presumably be liable under a doctrine called 'respondeat superior' which finds an employer vicariously liable for the acts of the agent committed within the scope of the employment.  Additionally - it is possible (if not likely) that the pilot had an employment agreement with the company providing that the company would indemnify him against any claims arising out of the scope of his employment (meaning that the company agrees to cover the liability of the pilot including attorneys' fees incurred).

 

Note: California law could have its own unique nuances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rosegreen said:

FAA hasn’t even released their final report. Given that, I’m not sure why she would file a suit now. Second I don’t believe she is after the pilots estate. 

 

Third, If I’m the opposing lawyer, I’d file a change of venue, someplace out of socal. There’s just no way there would be fair proceedings around here. 

She is forced to file suit now because the pilot's estate is likely being administered.  If a claim against the estate is not made within a certain relatively short time frame, the claims are forever barred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ridgeview2 said:

I just don't want to find out that the pilot said it was unsafe, but Kobe pressured him into doing it anyways. 

Why would you care?

"You pukin morons are just plain too dumb."

-bluerules008 aka jibscout aka Hal "Mosquito Man" Newman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mugtang said:

I hope she wins against the company but I also hope the case against the family of the pilot gets tossed.  There’s no reason for her to financially ruin that family over this.  

You presume the company was negligent. Why?

"You pukin morons are just plain too dumb."

-bluerules008 aka jibscout aka Hal "Mosquito Man" Newman

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...