Tower Company Sues Dead Pilot's Family
The family of a Quebec man who died when his single-engine plane crashed into a 1,000-foot-high telecommunications tower in dense fog in 2001 is being sued for $2.5 million by the tower's owner, CTV News reported Saturday. The wreck remained tangled in the tower for several days, and the tower was destroyed with dynamite to retrieve the airplane and the pilot's body. The tower is owned by a U.S. company, SpectraSite, which wants more than $2.5 million from the family to cover the costs of the tower's destruction, the cost to rebuild, and lost revenue. The company says the pilot was at fault for flying in fog, CTV News said. The pilot's widow and children say they don't have that much money. The family may have to declare bankruptcy to avert a court battle. "It's very harsh," one man said in French to CTV. "Companies have to be poor to sue a family that has already lost so much." In a recent first-quarter financial report, SpectraSite reported its total assets at about $1.5 billion.
Tower Company Sues Dead Pilot's Family
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
pickleswitch
- Rank 1
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:56 am
-
Captain Morgan
- Rank 0
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:00 pm
People get sued for that kind of cash only when they have Deep Pockets. Otherwise the plaintiff wouldn't bother wasting their own money on the legal process. Therefore, the family must have some liability insurance or have a lot of financial worth. I suspect SpectraSite is not suing directly but their insurance company is. (Or perhaps SpectraSite is suing because all or part of this occurence such as lost revenue was not covered by their own insurance company.) Most likely it's not a case of the Big Guy picking on the Little Guy, but simply the insurance companies hashing it out. (An alternative to liability insurance is to not own any assets and have very little worth--no Deep Pockets)
That's was quite an accident.
That's was quite an accident.
The word was tha there was up to 4 million available from insurance and the only way for the tower owner to recover it is to sue the estate.
That's the way the law works.
The tower owners are correct in stating that the pilot was neglegent.
No money will come out of the pockets of the pilots' family.
That's the way the law works.
The tower owners are correct in stating that the pilot was neglegent.
No money will come out of the pockets of the pilots' family.
Pilots get higher, SCUBA Divers do it deeper!
Pretty sure when you do something stupid your insurance becomes null and void..
Like life insurance you can't kill yourself and expect your family to recieve the money..
Pretty sure the insurance company will say he was negligent so they won't pay, so the family will need a lawyer to sue their own insurance company to pay..
In the end they're better off declaring bankruptcy and going back to their lives..
"single engine" aircraft.. LoL the Diamond D-Jet is single engine.. Malibu's are single engines.. Doesn't mean his family is poor and can't afford to pay..
There family can sue them for putting the tower in the way.. =) so everyone can sue one another.. woohooo. =)
God Bless North America..
Like life insurance you can't kill yourself and expect your family to recieve the money..
Pretty sure the insurance company will say he was negligent so they won't pay, so the family will need a lawyer to sue their own insurance company to pay..
In the end they're better off declaring bankruptcy and going back to their lives..
"single engine" aircraft.. LoL the Diamond D-Jet is single engine.. Malibu's are single engines.. Doesn't mean his family is poor and can't afford to pay..
There family can sue them for putting the tower in the way.. =) so everyone can sue one another.. woohooo. =)
God Bless North America..
-
Always Moving
- Rank 3
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:13 am
- Location: Always Moving
Lawyers, Einsurance, doctors and politicians GREAT CROWD!
I have a sense that no one ist responsible for anything, anymore.
Many times a company with deep pockets will sue just to set a precident. They are saying that if you crash into my tower,I will sue. Who is negligent. Am I negligent for erecting the tower or is the pilot negligent for crashing into it. Maybe there were some lights out. Maybe someone was making noise about the percieved hazard, I know of a company whose truck was involved in a fatal accident not their fault. Sued the guilty party to avert legal action.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
Even in death some will still have to pay! Not that his family haven't suffered enough now they have to go through this. Why don't they counter sue and say the tower wasn't sufficiently marked to avoid the collision? I’m sure they could find some slick lawyer who could find something to pin on the company.
Putting money into aviation is like wiping before you poop....it just don't make sense!
Not too much info in that report.
"The company says the pilot was at fault for flying in fog, CTV News said"
Any idea if the pilot was filed? Fog doesn't always mean unflyable. Just because a news report says dense fog what does that really mean? The general public has no idea about judging weather.
Was the guy on approach or taking off or .. running? There's nothing in there that really says what happened. There's always the possiblity of other factors involved. Maybe the tower was put up in the middle of an approach unlight. Ya sure he probably just hit the tower being an idiot flying in weather beyond his capabilities. Just saying.... maybe it wasn't his fault. I like to root for the team without the cash-grabbing lawyers.
"The company says the pilot was at fault for flying in fog, CTV News said"
Any idea if the pilot was filed? Fog doesn't always mean unflyable. Just because a news report says dense fog what does that really mean? The general public has no idea about judging weather.
Was the guy on approach or taking off or .. running? There's nothing in there that really says what happened. There's always the possiblity of other factors involved. Maybe the tower was put up in the middle of an approach unlight. Ya sure he probably just hit the tower being an idiot flying in weather beyond his capabilities. Just saying.... maybe it wasn't his fault. I like to root for the team without the cash-grabbing lawyers.
The Tower is 7.5 nm south of Lac-a-la-Tortue airport (CSL3) It is not in the approach path of any of the 2 runways. That day it was IMC. The pilot was NOT IFR rated, he flew low level with very low visibility.
The lights on that tower were really powerfull, so for somebody to hit that tower... you need real crappy weather. Or you're just looking at your instrument panel trying to invent a new IFR procedure flying at 1000' AGL 7½ nm from an airfield with no published Instruments Approach.
That is what I remember from that day. My mom was living in Lac-a-la-Tortue at that time.
The lights on that tower were really powerfull, so for somebody to hit that tower... you need real crappy weather. Or you're just looking at your instrument panel trying to invent a new IFR procedure flying at 1000' AGL 7½ nm from an airfield with no published Instruments Approach.
That is what I remember from that day. My mom was living in Lac-a-la-Tortue at that time.
The funny thing as I remember is that it was that dudes job to check the integrety of cell towers. He flew around and tested the towers. He was a private pilot and made a bad call that day. VFR into IMC. Should that company sue his family? Hell no, how the f*ck is it their fault?? Its shitty but isnt that why these things are insured? Let the cheapskate insurance company cough up the $$..
Keep flying till the noise stops.
