The article says “Honeywell denied that its product, called an enhanced ground proximity warning system, caused the crash.” I’m sure the pilot’s husband isn’t claiming the warning system caused the crash, but that the warning system failed to give an appropriate warning, which might have prevented the crash. That being said, do we really want to rely on talking and/or driverless cars to keep us safe on our highways??
Do we know if the pilot was an employee of UPS? If so, wouldn’t the husband have received some payment from work comp or life insurance? How would the spouse have access to the sort of information required to develop such a suit? Seems like UPS should be the ones in the driver seat if a suit were warranted.
GenX – collecting WC benefits does not bar one from pursuing a suit against a negligent third-party. UPS would subrogate for any WC benefits paid should Honeywell be found negligent.
The article says “Honeywell denied that its product, called an enhanced ground proximity warning system, caused the crash.” I’m sure the pilot’s husband isn’t claiming the warning system caused the crash, but that the warning system failed to give an appropriate warning, which might have prevented the crash. That being said, do we really want to rely on talking and/or driverless cars to keep us safe on our highways??
Do we know if the pilot was an employee of UPS? If so, wouldn’t the husband have received some payment from work comp or life insurance? How would the spouse have access to the sort of information required to develop such a suit? Seems like UPS should be the ones in the driver seat if a suit were warranted.
GenX – collecting WC benefits does not bar one from pursuing a suit against a negligent third-party. UPS would subrogate for any WC benefits paid should Honeywell be found negligent.