DJ 'seeks $20m over plane crash'

jellybaby · 17-03-2009, 21:06

Quote:

Musician DJ AM is seeking $20m (Ã‚Â£14m) damages for injuries he sustained in a plane crash in South Carolina last year, according to reports.

I can't see how he can justify this figure !? He's lucky to be alive.

And I feel that

Quote:

The legal actions filed by the musicians cover several companies including Goodyear, which made the plane's tyres and the estates of the two pilots who died in the crash

is just wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7947941.stm

I really feel for the pilots' families, to have to go through this on top of everything else

cookie_365 · 17-03-2009, 21:39

Why is it wrong? If the pilots caused his injuries why should he not be able to sue their estates?

I can't see how he can justify the figure either - I've never heard of him - but it'll be up to him to justify in court.

jellybaby · 17-03-2009, 21:42

Well according to this report, it suggests that there was a tyre blow out and the pilots did all they could.

Hom3r · 17-03-2009, 21:53

Before every plane take-off, large or small a walk around should be done, this would include tyres, and checking the planes tech log which will list any problems the planes had and parts that have been changed.

In an ideal world these are done in daylight, but in the real world these can be done in the dark with a torch, and it raining heavily, and some tyre defect could easily be missed.

mischievious · 17-03-2009, 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Why is it wrong? If the pilots caused his injuries why should he not be able to sue their estates?

I can't see how he can justify the figure either - I've never heard of him - but it'll be up to him to justify in court.

Since both the pilot and co-pilot died in the crash it is probably pretty clear that they did everything that they could. It is possible that they could have done more in hindsight but surely if your life is in the balance you do EVERYTHING that you can at least think of?

Since this happened in the USA he prob will receive an exceptional handout, in the great USA everyone can and will sue everyone else for money!

ok above might be a little strong to make a point

Arthurgray50@blu · 17-03-2009, 22:25

It always happens in the great USA, silly money.

Russ · 17-03-2009, 22:35

Indeed. Only in America could you fart, follow through then sue Heinz Beans for 'emotional distress'.

mischievious · 17-03-2009, 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Indeed. Only in America could you fart, follow through then sue Heinz Beans for 'emotional distress'.

pure genius

shhh... keep it to yourself and take a hol in USA sometime soon

Flyboy · 17-03-2009, 22:56

Hmm, although I am a great believer that if it is someones fault, they should be held accountable and if that means through their pockets, then so be it. But the amounts do seem a little excessive and goes someway to cheapen the action. However, I would have thought that the insurance company would be the first port of call. Under subrogation clauses, it would be they who would sue the pilots etc.

mischievious · 17-03-2009, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But the amounts do seem a little excessive and goes someway to cheapen the action.

I am thinking you mean ethically or morally?

I agree on that front but also think that in the monetary sense Ã‚Â£14M is extreme.

He is claiming roughly half in lost earnings and the other half in compensation if I remember rightly...... I have NEVER heard of him, please speak up if you have and explain to me why or how he earns Ã‚Â£7M a year as a DJ???

gazzae · 17-03-2009, 23:15

Quote:

DECEMBER 30, 2008
Hello All -

Normally I don’t feel like I NEED to make a statement like this, but after I read some recently reported untruths I feel like I have to. I want to take a second to address the hurtful posts and clear up any misunderstandings any of you may have about my law suit. I would NEVER sue the deceased pilots’ estates or personal holdings. I am more than grateful that I survived this horrible accident and I’d never try to take anything from those that didn’t. Despite the misinterpretations of the lawsuit, this suit is against the insurance companies that insured the pilots. I’m not after Sarah’s or James’ personal estates nor their property. Everyone involved in this suit has suffered a great deal, and I would not do anything to make matters worse for the deceased family and friends. Daily I live with the guilt and grief of what happened that night, what I saw, who was lost and why I was spared. I have no words to express the pain that comes with knowing four people died, while I lived.

Adam "DJ AM" Goldstein

18-03-2009, 04:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by jellybaby

Well according to this report, it suggests that there was a tyre blow out and the pilots did all they could.

Good find, if it was a tyre blow out then who the hell is he going to sue for the money? Instead of going for compensation he should be giving the pilot praise.

BBKing · 18-03-2009, 08:46

Quote:

who the hell is he going to sue for the money?

The insurers, presumably. There have been cases where there's some technical reason why the insurance wasn't valid and the estate of the pilot has ended up liable. After Graham Hill's fatal crash in 1975 IIRC the insurers refused to pay up and his widow ended up in court. Not nice, but it was his duty to make sure he and his passengers were covered for the flight. His pilot's licence had expired. Shades of Colin McRae?

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...t-verdict.html

Flyboy · 18-03-2009, 14:57

Actually, his license hadn't expired, it was dated until December nineteen seventy-five. It was his IMC rating that was out of date. This was an apparent oversight and administration error, rather than his competency. He was rated in the US for IMC, but he mistakenly assumed that, as he renewed the rating in Canada in nineteen seventy-four, it would have been accepted in the UK, as it was in the US. This is in addition to the fact that the aircraft's country of registration was not clear. The previous owners had de-registered the aircraft in the USA and had not re-registered the aircraft in another country. As the rules sate that the pilot flying an aircraft registered in a different country, he must be rated in the UK. However, he had logged over one thousand six hundred hours as captain, with more than one thousand hours on type; more specifically, in the aircraft flown. He had in excess of one hundred and fifty hours on instrument and eighty hours at night; including over thirty landings in conditions.

It was assumed, initially, it was instrument failure that was the root cause, but this was discounted by the AAIB report from the investigation into the accident. His RT was malfunctioning though and he had been out of radio contact for some time during the flight. The inexperience and lack of training of the local ATC at Elstree, in my opinion, could have been a contributing factor. They were not trained in IMC nor night operations and were unlicensed (not necessarily required for private fields). It is possible that they gave conflicting instructions as to the QNH/QFE (altimeter calibrations) at Elstree. But I think the more likely explanation was the VOR station at Lambourne was to blame. It had been having some calibration errors at the time and could have given incorrect information, leading to inaccurate range and vectoring data.

But it appears that the AAIB gave pilot error as the cause of the accident.

BBKing · 18-03-2009, 15:02

Thanks for the correction - I was fairly sure it was a technicality rather than anything flagrantly malicious, as with McRae, but insurance companies tend not to take the broad, generous view of these things.

It was suggested at one point that because Hill's car was at Elstree he'd be under pressure get in there. Not the first good pilot to go down because of pressure to get home.