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.
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.
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.
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.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.