Does anyone know how this would be different if an antenna tower (based/attached off the road way) would topple unto to a moving truck, but not hit \”upon\” the road (just kind of create a bridge) and come to rest on the other side of the road. Would this situation under Michigan no-fault require the truck to pay for the antenna?
It is results like this that encourage more idiots and their bottom feeding lawyers to trample on the innocent and faultless, in their rush to get at those Deep Pockets.
1 trial lawyer + 2 judges in a relatively liberal state = 1 shafting for an insurance company with deep pockets.
Absolutely ridiculous that the insurer of the obviously not-at-fault truck driver should have to pay for damages to the \”vehicle\” whose operator was at fault. Even stranger that the vehicle in question was an AIRPLANE THAT HIT A TRUCK ON A ROAD!!!
Why does it sometimes seem that litigation makes the world go \’round, and that only people with no common sense are allowed to sit on a bench?
I disagree with the verdict, but don\’t think this should have been defended. In my opinion, the carrier didn\’t think this one through. Surely the defense expense was anticipaed. Defend and appeal this loss worth $18,000. $41,000 in expenses defending a case that has to do with a loss that is unlikely to ever happen to them again! I understand some cases must be defended when there is the potential for setting a precedent. But, come on. Somebody let me know if Cinncinati ever incurs another airplane or falling \”vehicle\” to one of their insured autos. How did their corporate attorney get approval for this meaningless defense? This is a dollars in, dollars out business and they wasted 40 grand.
This is why Michigan personal auto rates are 2x or 3x higher than other states.
I know someone who moved from a big city in another state to rural Michigan, was expecting that his insurance rates would drop. Instead they went up 2.5x because of Michigan\’s screwy no fault laws.
Hartford & other carriers don\’t sell personal lines in MI anymore due to this stuff. Colorado dumped their no fault, now more drivers have insurance since the rates have dropped. MI will hopefully follow sometime.
So by this logic, I can drive bulldozer onto, say DeGraw\’s attorney\’s property crushing his car and then sue him for recovery of damages to my bulldozer?
What about the truck driver that had the beejeebers (or something else) scared out of him?!! He should have a liability claim against the pilot for not landing on a proper runway, etc. Any damage to the truck? Does Michigan have no-fault aircraft policies too? Simple math hit the nail on the head! Blooming idiots!!
…and I thought lawsuits crossed the absurdity line only in California. So by the judges\’ reasoning, if the truck driver swerved onto the field and got hit by the plane, the insurer would\’ve still had to pay for the damaged plane? Or better still, what if the plane managed to land on the road and hit the truck head-on? What then? My head hurts just thinking about the absolute ridiculousness of this one.
Of course Campos thinks their \”no fault\” law is a good one; he just made $48,000 defending a liability claim that should have been a subro claim! I thought no fault meant both parties pay for their own losses untill some threashold is breached where normal tort law takes over. The best way to repeal a bad law is to vigerously enforce it. In the mean time; my sympathies to the sane people held prisioner in the Peoples Republic of Michigan
This to Dewy, Cheetum, & Howe. As a fellow \”Car Talk\” listener, I\’d like to add that there are more reasons than not being subject to decisions like this that make it good not to be in Michigan. Jim
P.S. It\’s 70 degrees in L.A. today.
Bottom line on MI\’s screwed up laws…..throw everything you know about legal liability out the window. It only exists in extreme cases and then of course benefits scum-sucking trial lawyers in their big lawsuits.
The truck driver saw the airplane and did nothing to miss it….HMMM.
By most of your opinions, if the truck driver saw another truck at an intersection ahead of him, even though hen has the right of way, he should just get in the other trucks way and hit him.
Was the airplane having engine trouble? Don\’t know.
By the way, we are glad you live in California too. Michigan is great.
Interesting comments……..especially the idiot part.
There is a law that controls all airplane having an engine problem. It is the Law of Gavity and it always wins. Your comment on \”Who cares if the plane was having engine problems\” seems to me to not understand this law.
From the insurance company and truck driver prospective it would be called \”Bad Law\”, but form the airplane pilots perpective, it seems like \”Good Law\”.
Of all the conclusions that have been formed in these replies, the only one that makes sense is the comment,that from a dollars and cents standpoint, the cost to the insurance company and the truck owner didn\’t make any sense to defend this case.
It is great to live in Michigan and Merry Christmas.
Kind of an apples to grapes comparison don\’t you think WEB? I know that if I were driving a truck, I really wouldn\’t be watching out for an airplane coming in while I was driving legally on an open road not near any runways. I have been in many a small plane before and I know that I could see what was below me and was able to avoid anything on the ground. Also why was he flying so close to the road anyway? Maybe the best place for you is in Michigan, up there out of everybody else\’s way.
Well, what have we here? A bunch of folks acting like they know everything about everything. And the comment about so what if he was having engine trouble? Bet you have trouble keeping friends–or clients. You people should really find out more details about this case before you do the obvious knee-jerk reactions. The plane was landing on a grass airstrip. I don\’t know how the road lies as opposed to the airstrip, but I\’m sure since TWO judges ruled in favor of the pilot, that somehow the driver of the truck was indeed at fault! I don\’t care WHAT you are driving, if you are on an airstrip, you watch for airplanes! By some of your logics, if the plane was taxing, the truck could just pull in front of the plane and the truck wouldn\’t be a fault? Basically the same thing, except a plane landing has very few options for boneheads that pull out in front of them! The one obvious thing still stands–why did they spend so much money, and worry about setting a precedent, when something like this will probably NEVER happen again!
Point taken David. I guess when the article said that the truck was being driven lawfully, one would think that the plane had the duty of staying at a height that would bring it in safely over the road and an incident like this would not happen. Maybe the pilot needs to check his instruments a little better.
Ah….. David, you have hit the nail on the head. He was trying to land at, I believe North Cedar Airport. The truck driver said that he indeed saw the plane coming and thought he was a goner. The article was written slanted toward the truck driver and his boss.
Judge Servass is a no nonsense kind of guy and he surely looked at all aspects of Michigan\’s fine law.
Have you ever seen a sign that says \”Low flying aircraft\”?
And since Mr. Buckeye can\’t keep from personalizing this as the boy in California has, We in Michigan know that \”Happiness is crushed Buckeye Nuts\”. Go Blue.
Does anyone know how this would be different if an antenna tower (based/attached off the road way) would topple unto to a moving truck, but not hit \”upon\” the road (just kind of create a bridge) and come to rest on the other side of the road. Would this situation under Michigan no-fault require the truck to pay for the antenna?
You\’ve got to be kidding!
SOMEONE WANT TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO ME, PLEASE?
It is results like this that encourage more idiots and their bottom feeding lawyers to trample on the innocent and faultless, in their rush to get at those Deep Pockets.
It\’s simple…
1 trial lawyer + 2 judges in a relatively liberal state = 1 shafting for an insurance company with deep pockets.
Absolutely ridiculous that the insurer of the obviously not-at-fault truck driver should have to pay for damages to the \”vehicle\” whose operator was at fault. Even stranger that the vehicle in question was an AIRPLANE THAT HIT A TRUCK ON A ROAD!!!
Why does it sometimes seem that litigation makes the world go \’round, and that only people with no common sense are allowed to sit on a bench?
The clmt and their atty should give a public apology and admit they did this because they are shallow and greedy.
Sounds like the Degraw\’s insurance agent forgot to sell the hull insurance on the plane. E&O anyone?
Bob
I disagree with the verdict, but don\’t think this should have been defended. In my opinion, the carrier didn\’t think this one through. Surely the defense expense was anticipaed. Defend and appeal this loss worth $18,000. $41,000 in expenses defending a case that has to do with a loss that is unlikely to ever happen to them again! I understand some cases must be defended when there is the potential for setting a precedent. But, come on. Somebody let me know if Cinncinati ever incurs another airplane or falling \”vehicle\” to one of their insured autos. How did their corporate attorney get approval for this meaningless defense? This is a dollars in, dollars out business and they wasted 40 grand.
This is why Michigan personal auto rates are 2x or 3x higher than other states.
I know someone who moved from a big city in another state to rural Michigan, was expecting that his insurance rates would drop. Instead they went up 2.5x because of Michigan\’s screwy no fault laws.
Hartford & other carriers don\’t sell personal lines in MI anymore due to this stuff. Colorado dumped their no fault, now more drivers have insurance since the rates have dropped. MI will hopefully follow sometime.
So by this logic, I can drive bulldozer onto, say DeGraw\’s attorney\’s property crushing his car and then sue him for recovery of damages to my bulldozer?
What about the truck driver that had the beejeebers (or something else) scared out of him?!! He should have a liability claim against the pilot for not landing on a proper runway, etc. Any damage to the truck? Does Michigan have no-fault aircraft policies too? Simple math hit the nail on the head! Blooming idiots!!
…and I thought lawsuits crossed the absurdity line only in California. So by the judges\’ reasoning, if the truck driver swerved onto the field and got hit by the plane, the insurer would\’ve still had to pay for the damaged plane? Or better still, what if the plane managed to land on the road and hit the truck head-on? What then? My head hurts just thinking about the absolute ridiculousness of this one.
Now you\’ve got to look at where this is all happening, Michigan. But I\’m sure that all states have had their bits of Legal Stupidity now and again.
Of course Campos thinks their \”no fault\” law is a good one; he just made $48,000 defending a liability claim that should have been a subro claim! I thought no fault meant both parties pay for their own losses untill some threashold is breached where normal tort law takes over. The best way to repeal a bad law is to vigerously enforce it. In the mean time; my sympathies to the sane people held prisioner in the Peoples Republic of Michigan
This to Dewy, Cheetum, & Howe. As a fellow \”Car Talk\” listener, I\’d like to add that there are more reasons than not being subject to decisions like this that make it good not to be in Michigan. Jim
P.S. It\’s 70 degrees in L.A. today.
Bottom line on MI\’s screwed up laws…..throw everything you know about legal liability out the window. It only exists in extreme cases and then of course benefits scum-sucking trial lawyers in their big lawsuits.
The truck driver saw the airplane and did nothing to miss it….HMMM.
By most of your opinions, if the truck driver saw another truck at an intersection ahead of him, even though hen has the right of way, he should just get in the other trucks way and hit him.
Was the airplane having engine trouble? Don\’t know.
By the way, we are glad you live in California too. Michigan is great.
Interesting comments……..especially the idiot part.
There is a law that controls all airplane having an engine problem. It is the Law of Gavity and it always wins. Your comment on \”Who cares if the plane was having engine problems\” seems to me to not understand this law.
From the insurance company and truck driver prospective it would be called \”Bad Law\”, but form the airplane pilots perpective, it seems like \”Good Law\”.
Of all the conclusions that have been formed in these replies, the only one that makes sense is the comment,that from a dollars and cents standpoint, the cost to the insurance company and the truck owner didn\’t make any sense to defend this case.
It is great to live in Michigan and Merry Christmas.
WEB
Don\’t be an idiot WEB! By most opinions, this decision is simply bad law and defies all logic.
And who cares if the plane was having engine problems, it doesn\’t matter in this case.
Kind of an apples to grapes comparison don\’t you think WEB? I know that if I were driving a truck, I really wouldn\’t be watching out for an airplane coming in while I was driving legally on an open road not near any runways. I have been in many a small plane before and I know that I could see what was below me and was able to avoid anything on the ground. Also why was he flying so close to the road anyway? Maybe the best place for you is in Michigan, up there out of everybody else\’s way.
Well, what have we here? A bunch of folks acting like they know everything about everything. And the comment about so what if he was having engine trouble? Bet you have trouble keeping friends–or clients. You people should really find out more details about this case before you do the obvious knee-jerk reactions. The plane was landing on a grass airstrip. I don\’t know how the road lies as opposed to the airstrip, but I\’m sure since TWO judges ruled in favor of the pilot, that somehow the driver of the truck was indeed at fault! I don\’t care WHAT you are driving, if you are on an airstrip, you watch for airplanes! By some of your logics, if the plane was taxing, the truck could just pull in front of the plane and the truck wouldn\’t be a fault? Basically the same thing, except a plane landing has very few options for boneheads that pull out in front of them! The one obvious thing still stands–why did they spend so much money, and worry about setting a precedent, when something like this will probably NEVER happen again!
Point taken David. I guess when the article said that the truck was being driven lawfully, one would think that the plane had the duty of staying at a height that would bring it in safely over the road and an incident like this would not happen. Maybe the pilot needs to check his instruments a little better.
Ah….. David, you have hit the nail on the head. He was trying to land at, I believe North Cedar Airport. The truck driver said that he indeed saw the plane coming and thought he was a goner. The article was written slanted toward the truck driver and his boss.
Judge Servass is a no nonsense kind of guy and he surely looked at all aspects of Michigan\’s fine law.
Have you ever seen a sign that says \”Low flying aircraft\”?
And since Mr. Buckeye can\’t keep from personalizing this as the boy in California has, We in Michigan know that \”Happiness is crushed Buckeye Nuts\”. Go Blue.
WEB