Vanessa Bryant files wrongful death suit against helicopter operator in Kobe Bryant crash

[HubbaHubbaLife]

For discussion purposes, let's say you are going to Vegas on American Airlines, you want to take a couple friends and so you buy their tickets. You are not the pilot, you don't own the airline, you are not an officer or employee of the airline, you are just a customer and paid for some friends seats. Would you be liable?

Anyone can sue for anything, but I am not sure what the basis is given Kobe had no authority over the decision to fly, he just paid for the seats. I think that claim if made gets tossed on legal motions.

Everyone does have a claim against the pilot and against the charter company, and possibly the manufacturer and maintainer of the aircraft.

Personally, I believe that suits will be filed with a litany of different legal theories for the purpose of expanding the pot of money so that it becomes as large as possible. And most likely, the insurance companies will work to limit their exposure to policy limits and not beyond. And then there will be a "discussion" amongst the parties on how to divvy up that pool of money which is where if the parties can not come to an agreement, they will fight with each other on how to divide the pot up.

Lastly, one has to remember that Part 135 commercial helicopter operations are statistically much more dangerous than Part 121 commercial airline service. If they both had the same accident rate, we would be having a commercial airliner going down every 5 days or so......

Impressive video. Thanks for posting.

 

[Crazyhippy]

Maybe not running low on money, but her income just hit the Shitter...

NO, that was a mountain...

 

[SnoC653]

For discussion purposes, let's say you are going to Vegas on American Airlines, you want to take a couple friends and so you buy their tickets. You are not the pilot, you don't own the airline, you are not an officer or employee of the airline, you are just a customer and paid for some friends seats. Would you be liable?

Anyone can sue for anything, but I am not sure what the basis is given Kobe had no authority over the decision to fly, he just paid for the seats. I think that claim if made gets tossed on legal motions.

Everyone does have a claim against the pilot and against the charter company, and possibly the manufacturer and maintainer of the aircraft. .......

There is a huge difference between buying someone a seat on a scheduled flight and scheduling the flight and paying for the entire flight and taking people along. If you take someone with you in your car, you are liable. If you rent a car and take someone with you, you are liable. If you rent a car and pay someone to drive it for you and take someone with you, you are liable. In all of these examples the liability is clear. Buy someone a bus ticket and it's hard to say you are liable, not that it isn't possible. The only difference here is that the rental flew. The pilot was paid for by Kobe. If Kobe said the flight is canceled then it would not have flown. The liability for the charter company comes if they were negligent in something. Did they maintain the aircraft? Did they insure the pilot was properly trained? And maybe they can say the company had a responsibility to make sure the weather was sufficiently good. The FAA will tell us if the helicopter had a mechanical problem, The pilot's training record seems correct and well above minimum requirements, and the crash site was not in the clouds, so yes they could legally be flying there. They will be cleared of all liability unless a mechanical failure shows up, which they should have known of or been looking for or some as to now undisclosed secret appears that would have disqualified the pilot (which the company would have had to known about). Back to the car scenario, owning the company that rented you a car does not make them liable for your trip.

 

[thmterry]

I had a friend get hit by a u-haul truck that the renter did not return and was still driving it. The ambulance chaser lawyers would not take the case because they said U-haul was not liable. I never understood that.

 

[JUSTWANNARACE]

I had a friend get hit by a u-haul truck that the renter did not return and was still driving it. The ambulance chaser lawyers would not take the case because they said U-haul was not liable. I never understood that.

The U-haul was stolen at that point so why would they be liable? And they knew there was no $ in going after the driver. So said lawyers would have never seen a dime. At least that's the way I see it..

 

[ToMorrow44]

They were not permitted to do that type of flight in the first place is my understanding.

There were no failures. Pilot was in over his head before he started circling in the Burbank Airport holding area. He just had too much going on. He should have landed in Van Nuys and called some black cars to get the passengers where they were going. They would have been pissed, but alive.

The audio is pretty telling, and my guess is that this is why the suit was filed now, along with flying in those conditions when they shouldn’t have.

If Vanessa is truly just suing for the funeral and burial expenses, this will likely be settled out of court anyway.

Wholeheartedly disagree. He was 100% allowed to do what he was doing. Actually it’s quite normal for helicopters to fly SVFR. The conditions were just barely below VFR minimums (1100/2.5). He was THE most qualified helicopter pilot you can be, he’s the guy who instructs the instructors, 8200 flight hours. The real issue is the FAA making his company VFR only. It handcuffed him into making that decision, had he been able to pick up an IFR clearance (which he is more than qualified to do, as is the aircraft) he would have been golden, but his company policies say no IFR.

It’s a shame this lawsuit was filed as all its gonna do is drag the pilot through the mud, as evident in this thread...

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Wholeheartedly disagree. He was 100% allowed to do what he was doing. Actually it’s quite normal for helicopters to fly SVFR. The conditions were just barely below VFR minimums (1100/2.5). He was THE most qualified helicopter pilot you can be, he’s the guy who instructs the instructors, 8200 flight hours. The real issue is the FAA making his company VFR only. It handcuffed him into making that decision, had he been able to pick up an IFR clearance (which he is more than qualified to do, as is the aircraft) he would have been golden, but his company policies say no IFR.

It’s a shame this lawsuit was filed as all its gonna do is drag the pilot through the mud, as evident in this thread...

He was rated for those those conditions, the company was not, and it sounds like not insured for that. He should not have proceeded. All parties are gonna be nailed in this suit on that one. I don’t see any way out of that...

The lawsuit is just a CYA. Vanessa has the most to lose.

The pilot certainly had digital topography maps of the area that would have told him he was below a safe altitude of nearby peaks. Again, single pilot, bad conditions, VIP passenger(s). He likely had a bit too much going on and made some mistakes. Problems with the route clearly started before the crash. Crashes like this with no apparent mechanical failure generally seem to be caused by a series of events, not a single oversight.

 

[Looking Glass]

The U-haul was stolen at that point so why would they be liable? And they knew there was no $ in going after the driver. So said lawyers would have never seen a dime. At least that's the way I see it..

STOLEN

 

[ToMorrow44]

For clarification and not trying to discredit your opinion, but:

This is incorrect except for the part where you said it was your understanding. They were flying VFR of which Special VFR is a sub-category. The pilot was trained in and tested on IFR flying and recovery if inadvertently finding himself in IFR. He did this training and testing in a helicopter. This is above and beyond what he is required to do for his flight review and currency flights. Van Nuys was IFR and would have taken time to get permission to land there. Transitioning the airspace is way easier than getting a special VFR landing clearance. And nobody knows what the conversation was in the helicopter. Did the pilot suggest landing and the passengers taking ground transportation? Did he discuss the risks of pushing on in the air? The suite acknowledges that he was Kobe's long time pilot. Did Kobe tell him, that he trusted him and to keep going? We don't know. Were there text messages or Tweets from any of the passengers expressing their fear? None have been released so lets go with NO. And just because the Sheriff's Office grounded their aircraft doesn't mean the weather wasn't flyable. Perhaps they knew their aircraft were not properly maintained and didn't want to risk it? They might have an insurance company that does not allow them to fly in minimum weather (EMS and LEO crashes in marginal weather is probably the number one source of controlled flight into terrain accidents).

You may think you know what the audio tells, but to a trained and experienced helicopter pilot it tells that the pilot was following the rules and was working to get the job done. They made it to within 100 feet of the reported tops of the clouds before they started to descend. That means they were within a few seconds of being good to go. Despite the tragic way it all ended. The FAA has not ruled out a failure. They said the engines were running and they found no mechanical malfunction that would have caused the aircraft to loose power. It flew into the ground under power. They took the gyroscopic instruments for further testing. In other words they took things like the Attitude Indicator, stability augmentation system, and other flight instruments to test for malfunctions which could have contributed to the accident. Had the Attitude indicator started to fail, it could have caused this exact accident. It would still be pilot error, but the facts on the pilot being trained and capable of flying in the conditions he was, wouldn't have changed. Anyone with flight knowledge would agree he had all the appropriate training to be flying in the weather he was flying it. Something went wrong. He could have had a medical condition like an inner ear problem that he wasn't aware of at the time of the flight. There are a great deal of factors the FAA still needs to check before they release their final findings and make recommendations. Take offs are always optional. Landing is a mandatory fact after they take off. This landing wasn't a good one.

If you want my opinion on why she is suing, it is to get ahead of the law suits coming her way. Her husband invited the other victims and as a result they are dead. His pilot was flying an aircraft he rented. Kobe has a large estate and has deeper pockets than the charter company. Arguably he had the responsibility to cancel the flight. He wasn't a novice at using helicopters to shuttle around. His friends trusted his judgement and experience and are dead as a result. She is suing to divert the liability from her husband (and his estate) to the charter company.

couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[ToMorrow44]

He was rated for those those conditions, the company was not, and it sounds like not insured for that. He should not have proceeded. All parties are gonna be nailed on that one.

The lawsuit is just a CYA. Vanessa has the most to lose.

The pilot certainly had digital topography maps of the area that would have told him he was below a safe altitude of nearby peaks. Again, single pilot, bad conditions, VIP passenger(s). He likely had a bit too much going on and made some mistakes. Problems with the route clearly started before the crash. Crashes like this with no apparent mechanical failure generally seem to be caused by a series of events, not a single oversight.

SVFR is VFR. The company was rated and insured for those conditions.
In terms of charts, helicopters always operate below the obstacle clearance altitudes. Obstacle clearance altitudes listed on charts are generally 1000ft above the highest obstacle in the area, he would have been been way up in the clouds. Just part of flying a helicopter, SoCal hates helicopters, so they push them to fly low to stay out of the way.

 

[ToMorrow44]

Here’s the VFR chart for the Burbank/vanNuys area. Those “52”s I circled, are the maximum elevation figures = the highest terrain in that area = 5200ft. Otherwise, the chart isn’t great with terrain.

 

[JUSTWANNARACE]

STOLEN

If it was NOT returned per the contract date and still being used, what do you call it, just barrowing for awhile??

Glad you got those emojis figured out! Being those are the majority of your replies!


Anyway back to the topic at hand...

 

[C-2]

Didn't anybody else listen to what she said and how she said it at the memorial? She said her daughter won't be able to do this, won't be able to do that, etc.

If you didn't know the story, you would think she was talking about victims of a murder or a DUI accident; not simply an accident.

She's a scorned woman, that's why the suit was filed on the same day of the memorial. Can't say I blame her...

 

[SnoC653]

The only thing I can think of that might have saved this flight would be a second pilot. Even with a second pilot it can be tough. And if you survive it you thank whomever it is you pray to. Because if you've never transitioned a helicopter from SVFR to IFR you have no concept of what busy and confused is. Add in flight following calling for him and that pilot was swamped with work and trying to keep it flying. He might have been relying mostly on his attitude indicator to fly so he could try to do they other tasks like figure out the nav aides to use and where to recover to. If so it is possible his cross check got shortened and one of two things happened. 1) He got a case of spatial disorientation and didn't trust the attitude indicator and put it in the banking descending turn thinking that was level and still climbing. If this happened, he started to see other instruments that did not match what he thought he was doing. (Start the clock as time is running out). Airspeed starts to build and altitude starts winding down. The RMI starts spinning (remote magnetic indicator) and he figures out he is disoriented. By this time he is descending at 4000 feet per minute and flying over VNE. He starts to make corrections but the ground got there first. 2) He was climbing and almost on top, his attitude indicator starts to fail. The artificial horizon line rises and rolls to the right making it look like the helicopter is in a climbing right turn. He lowers the nose and turns left. The attitude indicator might have continued to precess. This might have caused him to turn and dive even more. Regardless he probably now thought he had spatial disorientation as it didn't feel right. He cross checked instruments and they say diving turn. He sorts out which is right. Starts to make corrections and the ground gets there first.

In either scenario you have no ideal how frantically that pilot was working to fly the helicopter. He knew he was in trouble, He was fighting for his life to get out of that trouble (indicated by the fact that he had slowed the aircraft and the rate of decent and just hadn't completely arrested the decent and started climbing again). He lost the fight. They call them accidents for a reason. He nor anyone else on board wanted that helicopter to crash. He was a victim just like the others. He left loved ones behind just like the others. Do you hear of anyone reaching out to console his loved ones? Is his loved ones receiving support from the proceeds at the celebration of life? He was the charter pilot for a celebrity. He was expected to be there waiting whenever Kobe wanted to go, to make magic happen and get him there on time even if they were running late, and to not make mistakes. He doesn't get his number retired when he leaves the game, nor did he get to take a bow when he did his job better than most. In a few weeks most won't even remember his name. But people that have no real clue what happened and what he did or didn't do, will point a finger at him and blame him for everything that happened. And as a pilot he would have accepted that, he was the pilot and he was responsible for the flight. But let us not forget he was a person and a victim of this accident like all the others.

To file against his estate before it has even been determined that he did something wrong just seems cold. If Kobe was as great a person as they say, would he not have forgiven and moved on? Or at least waited until the cause was clear?

 

[530RL]

Wholeheartedly disagree. He was 100% allowed to do what he was doing. Actually it’s quite normal for helicopters to fly SVFR. The conditions were just barely below VFR minimums (1100/2.5). He was THE most qualified helicopter pilot you can be, he’s the guy who instructs the instructors, 8200 flight hours. The real issue is the FAA making his company VFR only. It handcuffed him into making that decision, had he been able to pick up an IFR clearance (which he is more than qualified to do, as is the aircraft) he would have been golden, but his company policies say no IFR.

It’s a shame this lawsuit was filed as all its gonna do is drag the pilot through the mud, as evident in this thread...

Under part 135 Special VFR for helicopters includes a requirement to be “clear of clouds”.

Witnesses state, and the weather information indicates that the pilot did not remain “clear of clouds”.

If it is determined that the pilot did not remain clear of clouds, he is in violation of the FAR’s and therefore negligent in his operation of the aircraft. And if it is determined that he was negligent in his operation, then the plaintiffs will naturally attempt to apply the doctrine of vicarious liability to his employer the part 135 operator.

 

[SnoC653]

Under part 135 Special VFR for helicopters includes a requirement to be “clear of clouds”.

Witnesses state, and the weather information indicates that the pilot did not remain “clear of clouds”.

If it is determined that the pilot did not remain clear of clouds, he is in violation of the FAR’s and therefore negligent in his operation of the aircraft. And if it is determined that he was negligent in his operation, then the plaintiffs will naturally attempt to apply the doctrine of vicarious liability to his employer the part 135 operator.

What is the FAA's definition of Cloud versus Obscuration? How far does the visibility have to be reduced for it to be considered a cloud? And in an emergency the FAR does not need to be complied with. The pilot may deviate and do whatever is necessary to fly the aircraft. And no, he didn't need to declare the emergency first. First you fly the helicopter and then you explain the emergency after the emergency has been resolved or when time permits.

But to emphasize my point. While stationed in Germany, I had a SVFR clearance to depart Stuttgart International Airport we had another company UH1 that needed to go pick up a VIP. Stuttgart was IFR and they would only allow 1 helicopter departure every 30 min. or something crazy like that. There was no way the second aircraft could get to where they were going VFR and if they waited the 30 min they would be late to pick up. We departed as a flight of 2. He flew a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and I flew formation off of him (SVFR). Through the clouds I never lost sight of him and remained visual flight rules off of him. Upon return to base that afternoon we discussed it and decided to not allow anyone else try that. But it did work. There are thick clouds and there are very thin clouds. The clouds in question were fog. Was it 1/2 mile visibility and just too deep to see through? When we came out on top, I was a half stack off the tail rotor of lead (but I kept him in sight). Clearly the fog that lifted to form our clouds was very thick. We had a lot of encounters with fog and I have made the choice to punch in and transition to IFR before. I have also been hit by spatial disorientation in doing so. Clearly I was luckier than this pilot. Flying in marginal weather is one of the big advantages of a helicopter. He did nothing wrong, he just got unlucky and had an accident. He has already paid the price for that accident, people should let him Rest in Peace as well.

 

[gqchris]

She's a scorned woman, that's why the suit was filed on the same day of the memorial. Can't say I blame her...

She is a Latina. Enough said. This will never end!

How you can file a suit when the FAA hasnt even released a report is confusing to me. But Im not the expert.

 

[mash on it]

I keep reading explanations....

I keep hearing he ran out of talent...

Dan'l

 

[530RL]

She is a Latina. Enough said. This will never end!

How you can file a suit when the FAA hasnt even released a report is confusing to me. But Im not the expert.

As a previous poster stated, you can not use the probable cause findings, or more simply conclusions, from an NTSB accident report in civil litigation. You can use some of the factual data in limited circumstances, but none of the conclusions.

So the conclusions and/or probable cause in the final report has no bearing on the civil litigation and is in fact inadmissible by law.

 

[HCP3]

For discussion purposes, let's say you are going to Vegas on American Airlines, you want to take a couple friends and so you buy their tickets. You are not the pilot, you don't own the airline, you are not an officer or employee of the airline, you are just a customer and paid for some friends seats. Would you be liable?

Anyone can sue for anything, but I am not sure what the basis is given Kobe had no authority over the decision to fly, he just paid for the seats. I think that claim if made gets tossed on legal motions.

Everyone does have a claim against the pilot and against the charter company, and possibly the manufacturer and maintainer of the aircraft.

Personally, I believe that suits will be filed with a litany of different legal theories for the purpose of expanding the pot of money so that it becomes as large as possible. And most likely, the insurance companies will work to limit their exposure to policy limits and not beyond. And then there will be a "discussion" amongst the parties on how to divvy up that pool of money which is where if the parties can not come to an agreement, they will fight with each other on how to divide the pot up.

Lastly, one has to remember that Part 135 commercial helicopter operations are statistically much more dangerous than Part 121 commercial airline service. If they both had the same accident rate, we would be having a commercial airliner going down every 5 days or so......

Great video. Where does a scheduled charter such as Jet Suite X fall under?

 

[530RL]

What is the FAA's definition of Cloud versus Obscuration? How far does the visibility have to be reduced for it to be considered a cloud? And in an emergency the FAR does not need to be complied with. The pilot may deviate and do whatever is necessary to fly the aircraft. And no, he didn't need to declare the emergency first. First you fly the helicopter and then you explain the emergency after the emergency has been resolved or when time permits.

But to emphasize my point. While stationed in Germany, I had a SVFR clearance to depart Stuttgart International Airport we had another company UH1 that needed to go pick up a VIP. Stuttgart was IFR and they would only allow 1 helicopter departure every 30 min. or something crazy like that. There was no way the second aircraft could get to where they were going VFR and if they waited the 30 min they would be late to pick up. We departed as a flight of 2. He flew a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and I flew formation off of him (SVFR). Through the clouds I never lost sight of him and remained visual flight rules off of him. Upon return to base that afternoon we discussed it and decided to not allow anyone else try that. But it did work. There are thick clouds and there are very thin clouds. The clouds in question were fog. Was it 1/2 mile visibility and just too deep to see through? When we came out on top, I was a half stack off the tail rotor of lead (but I kept him in sight). Clearly the fog that lifted to form our clouds was very thick. We had a lot of encounters with fog and I have made the choice to punch in and transition to IFR before. I have also been hit by spatial disorientation in doing so. Clearly I was luckier than this pilot. Flying in marginal weather is one of the big advantages of a helicopter. He did nothing wrong, he just got unlucky and had an accident. He has already paid the price for that accident, people should let him Rest in Peace as well.

The FAR's define a cloud as;

1. A cloud is a visible aggregate of minute water droplets and/or ice particles in the atmosphere above the Earth’s surface.

At the end of the day, the PIC is ultimately responsible for the flight absent some factual finding of mechanical error. All accidents have a cause and a responsible party. He made the decision to go forward with the flight in those conditions.

Absent mechanical failure, what I think he did wrong is he failed to simply land the helicopter which is what the industry beats into us time and time again. Better to land in a field and sit it out than to push.

In your example above you mention that you have piloted some flights where you subsequently decided that others should not attempt such a flight, "but it did work". Different people have different decision making processes when it comes to acceptable and non-acceptable risks. I have come to the conclusion that I only get one fatal aviation accident in my life, and I would rather err on the side of caution and avoid using such accident up.

 

[530RL]

Great video. Where does a scheduled charter such as Jet Suite X fall under?

JSX is a part 135 on-demand air charter. They are not a Part 121 regularly scheduled air carrier.

 

[Englewood]

This is what I know for sure...

The Bryant Estate will be sued.
The Bryant Estate will spend millions and millions on attorney fees.
The Bryant Estate will spend a significant amount of money to settle.

I don't care how close the people on the flight were. Everything changes when Heirs see $$$.

 

[spectras only]

A friend died while logging in the Pacific Northwest in his helicopter. He had thousands of hours flying there, but anyone who knows the area, Bella Coola, Ocean Falls BC, clouds become pea soup in no time. In the North tip of Vancouver Island, popular halibut fishing towns Port Hardy, Port McNeil, you won't see boats in marinas without radars backing up GPS's

 

[SnoC653]

The FAR's define a cloud as;

1. A cloud is a visible aggregate of minute water droplets and/or ice particles in the atmosphere above the Earth’s surface.

At the end of the day, the PIC is ultimately responsible for the flight absent some factual finding of mechanical error. All accidents have a cause and a responsible party. He made the decision to go forward with the flight in those conditions.

Absent mechanical failure, what I think he did wrong is he failed to simply land the helicopter which is what the industry beats into us time and time again. Better to land in a field and sit it out than to push.

In your example above you mention that you have piloted some flights where you subsequently decided that others should not attempt such a flight, "but it did work". Different people have different decision making processes when it comes to acceptable and non-acceptable risks. I have come to the conclusion that I only get one fatal aviation accident in my life, and I would rather err on the side of caution and avoid using such accident up.

I agree, As Pilot in Command, he is responsible for the accident. But was he being negligent? Was he in over his head? Perhaps he felt overly confident because he had been checked out on IIMC on his last check ride. There are enough systems in the S-76 that even if his attitude indicator had failed, he could still fly IMC. But flying IMC and transitioning from SVFR to IMC that wasn't planned are two very different things. Recognizing and adjusting to a malfunction or even a physical impairment such as spatial disorientation takes time and time is very critical when flying a helicopter IMC. Helicopters are harder on gyroscopic instruments than a fixed wingd. probably has to do with the inherent vibrations of the aircraft. Was there a malfunction is a very important question. Even if there was, in a text book world there were enough backup systems to fly safely. Was the pilot in over his head? Not on a good day. He was trained and very capable. This just turned out to not be a good day. So what made it a bad day exactly?

Regardless of what happened, to win a case they have to prove negligence. He was trained (above and beyond the minimum required), the aircraft was properly equipped (above and beyond the minimum requirements), The flight into clouds get thrown out since the FAA routinely allows aircraft to fly SVFR in foggy conditions. (The FAA defines fog as a surface based cloud composed of either water droplets or ice crystals) So they can't say clear of clouds but flight in light fog is ok., and the statement that he should have landed is at best speculation based on hind sight. Helicopters fly in far worse visibility all the time without tragic results. Something went wrong and without the negligence factor being proven (which it doesn't appear to be based on the facts presented thus far) there are no grounds for the case.

Remember the pilot is always responsible for everything about the flight. If a passenger opens the back door and jumps to their death, the pilot is ultimately responsible in the eyes of the FAA. If they are landing and a car pulls up and opens a door, only to have it blown off by the rotor wash, the pilot is responsible.

 

[530RL]

I agree, As Pilot in Command, he is responsible for the accident. But was he being negligent? Was he in over his head? Perhaps he felt overly confident because he had been checked out on IIMC on his last check ride. There are enough systems in the S-76 that even if his attitude indicator had failed, he could still fly IMC. But flying IMC and transitioning from SVFR to IMC that wasn't planned are two very different things. Recognizing and adjusting to a malfunction or even a physical impairment such as spatial disorientation takes time and time is very critical when flying a helicopter IMC. Helicopters are harder on gyroscopic instruments than a fixed wingd. probably has to do with the inherent vibrations of the aircraft. Was there a malfunction is a very important question. Even if there was, in a text book world there were enough backup systems to fly safely. Was the pilot in over his head? Not on a good day. He was trained and very capable. This just turned out to not be a good day. So what made it a bad day exactly?

Regardless of what happened, to win a case they have to prove negligence. He was trained (above and beyond the minimum required), the aircraft was properly equipped (above and beyond the minimum requirements), The flight into clouds get thrown out since the FAA routinely allows aircraft to fly SVFR in foggy conditions. (The FAA defines fog as a surface based cloud composed of either water droplets or ice crystals) So they can't say clear of clouds but flight in light fog is ok., and the statement that he should have landed is at best speculation based on hind sight. Helicopters fly in far worse visibility all the time without tragic results. Something went wrong and without the negligence factor being proven (which it doesn't appear to be based on the facts presented thus far) there are no grounds for the case.

Remember the pilot is always responsible for everything about the flight. If a passenger opens the back door and jumps to their death, the pilot is ultimately responsible in the eyes of the FAA. If they are landing and a car pulls up and opens a door, only to have it blown off by the rotor wash, the pilot is responsible.

Where we disagree is in your premise that in order to win the case a plaintiff has to prove "negligence".

I believe all they have to prove is fault; and given he was the only pilot, absent mechanical malfunction, he is at fault.

 

[ToMorrow44]

I believe all they have to prove is fault; and given he was the only pilot, absent mechanical malfunction, he is at fault.

I’ll agree with that, absent of mechanical failure, it will be ruled pilot error.

I keep reading explanations....

I keep hearing he ran out of talent...

Dan'l

It’s not a talent thing man. Spacial disorientation will get anyone regardless of experience, skill, talent, or luck. I’ve gotten it before, it sucks, and that’s why we always fly with 2 pilots.

 

[530RL]

I’ll agree with that, absent of mechanical failure, it will be ruled pilot error.

It’s not a talent thing man. Spacial disorientation will get anyone regardless of experience, skill, talent, or luck. I’ve gotten it before, it sucks, and that’s why we always fly with 2 pilots.

And that is why newer fixed wing aircraft have that blue “LVL” button.

But for those in single pilot rotorcraft, making the right choice which is land the helicopter, is the best choice.

 

[WhatExit?]

Vanessa Bryant settles crash photos suit for $28.85 million​

Vanessa Bryant settled her remaining claims with Los Angeles County for $28.85 million over photos that deputies shared after a 2020 helicopter crash that killed her husband, former Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant; their 13-year-old daughter, Gianna; and seven others.

The settlement included the $15 million a jury already awarded Vanessa Bryant in August after a trial in federal court.

V. Bryant settles crash photos suit for $28.85M

Los Angeles County agreed Tuesday to pay $28.85 million to Vanessa Bryant after members of the sheriff's department shared graphic photos of the 2020 helicopter crash that killed her husband, Kobe Bryant; their daughter Gianna; and seven others.

www.espn.com

 

[RiverDave]

Vanessa Bryant settles crash photos suit for $28.85 million​

Vanessa Bryant settled her remaining claims with Los Angeles County for $28.85 million over photos that deputies shared after a 2020 helicopter crash that killed her husband, former Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant; their 13-year-old daughter, Gianna; and seven others.

The settlement included the $15 million a jury already awarded Vanessa Bryant in August after a trial in federal court.

V. Bryant settles crash photos suit for $28.85M

Los Angeles County agreed Tuesday to pay $28.85 million to Vanessa Bryant after members of the sheriff's department shared graphic photos of the 2020 helicopter crash that killed her husband, Kobe Bryant; their daughter Gianna; and seven others.

www.espn.com

28 million for photos? Good Lord.

RD

 

[Singleton]

28 million for photos? Good Lord.

RD

More then 28.
The Co-plaintiff Chris Chester, whose wife and daughter were also killed in the crash, received a $19.95 million settlement.

So LA county taxpayers are on the took for almost $50M

 

[bk2drvr]

She cleaned house. She wasn't going to back down until she won.

 

[LazyLavey]

Hopefully to cover the funeral costs of those involved. I find it hard to believe that vanessa bryant is running low on money.

But Her attorneys are

 

[JENKS]

 

[JENKS]

Pretty shitty of anyone especially first responders to take pics of your charred dead family members then share them like its a funny fuckin tik tok or youtube. Too bad the people responsible don't have to pay. The Bryant family doesn't need the $ it was to prove a point and it won't bring back kobe or his daughter but it may make them feel .001% better.

 

[prorider]

Unbelievable. Our country is doomed.

 

[t&y]

Pretty shitty of anyone especially first responders to take pics of your charred dead family members then share them like its a funny fuckin tik tok or youtube. Too bad the people responsible don't have to pay. The Bryant family doesn't need the $ it was to prove a point and it won't bring back kobe or his daughter but it may make them feel .001% better.

Wrong for sure to do that. So I hope this sets precedent and every photographer out there that responds to traffic accidents of regular people are sued for millions of dollars. It is exactly the same thing and hit happens daily, except I don't think they ever accused the deputies of trying to sell the pictures. Could be wrong, not sure.

 

[C_J_J_C]

Pretty shitty of anyone especially first responders to take pics of your charred dead family members then share them like its a funny fuckin tik tok or youtube. Too bad the people responsible don't have to pay. The Bryant family doesn't need the $ it was to prove a point and it won't bring back kobe or his daughter but it may make them feel .001% better.

Shitty - Yes
Common - Yes
Like you, I hope this makes someone think twice about it.

 

[Havasujaws]

28 million for photos? Good Lord.

RD

Yep pretty ridiculous. Go after the person(s) who showed the photos yes but to make the taxpayers pay for it is just being a money whore IMO. What does 28mil really accomplish? Tragic accident that happened because a pilot decided to fly in conditions when he shouldn't.

 

[bonesfab]

Yep pretty ridiculous. Go after the person(s) who showed the photos yes but to make the taxpayers pay for it is just being a money whore IMO. What does 28mil really accomplish? Tragic accident that happened because a pilot decided to fly in conditions when he shouldn't.

Because a pilot was told to fly in shitty conditions or else he wouldn’t have a job.

 

[Havasujaws]

Because a pilot was told to fly in shitty conditions or else he wouldn’t have a job.

Yep

 

[Riley1]

Bryant’s were money whores with or without the accident. I had no respect/concern about them before. And still don’t.
Never have really given a damn about how someone plays a child’s playground game.


I guess this post means I have already payed them too much attention.

.



BTW, the sooner everyone looks at Cops as a normal person with a difficult job, the better.