Re: Dead PHI Crew Member's Spouse Sues Company, Pilot's Estate

Posted April 30, 2009 · April 30, 2009

This kinda CRAP pisses me off what next are the families of the

houseton firefighters gonna sue the family for letting their house

catch fire or why not sue the family of the patient for ahveing a

heartattck. This makes me

So blidingly mad, when we do this job we accept a certain amount of

risk lawsuits like this make the deaths more about blame and money

rather than an accident it is part of the job and those that try and

make money off it in ANY form are scumbags. God bless the crew of this

accident and keep the memory of their lives, not the financial gain.

-Chris

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 30, 2009, at 17:52, Ron Haussecker haussecker87@...>

wrote:

>

> RH

> http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/44087637.html

>

Posted April 30, 2009 · April 30, 2009

Having known all of these crew members, I know that would NOT be a

happy camper with this suit. She would not have wanted PHI to be sued at all,

and to go after the pilot's estate is beyond ridiculous. She had worked with

that pilot alot, and would not want any more pain and suffering inflicted on his

family. This kind of frivolous suit does nothing but keep the bad part of this

alive for alot longer, and hurts all of us in EMS as well. It is a risk that we

all take every shift, and even more so when you make the choice to work in

flight EMS. I am very disappointed in her husband for pursuing this.

Kathy Birdwell, LP

Subject: Dead PHI Crew Member's Spouse Sues Company, Pilot's Estate

To: texasems-l

Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 5:52 PM

RH

http://www.kbtx. com/home/ headlines/ 44087637. html

Posted April 30, 2009 · April 30, 2009

As a lawyer for many years, I have the following perspective about lawsuits

such as this one.

After the bodies are buried, those who are left tend to look to their

personal interests, rather than the interests of a profession.

I have no idea whether or not the suing spouse had any connection to EMS or

HEMS, but when the funerals are done, people start to analyze what

happened, and they quite often become angry and seek recompense for damages,

such as

the loss of a spouse's companionship, loss of income, loss of benefits, and

a bunch of other potential damages.

Loss of a spouse has both economic and emotional effects, and survivors

will look to place blame and recover damages. That's a fact of life.

This will be a complex case, no matter what side you're on. First, there

will be the question about whether or not the flight should ever have

happened, then there will be the question about who assented to it and who did

not.

There is a concept in law known as " assumption of risk. " That means that

one may not be able to recover for damages caused by one's assent to the

risk. That will be an enormous and critical question in this lawsuit.

The law of " assumption of risk " is quite complex, and in Texas, there is a

plethora of cases that seem contradictory, anything but easy to understand,

and confusing.

While we may say that we're a community, a band of Brothers and Sister, and

so on, reality rears its head when things go wrong.

The legal system will sort out who's responsible to whom for what, and it

will take forever to do it.

The questions to be litigated are (1) who had a duty to whom for what; (2)

did somebody breach that duty; (3) did an injury occur that was

proximately caused by the breach; and (4) are there compensable damages. Also,

the

question of foreseeability will undoubtedly be litigated. Was the probable

crash foreseeable? If so, to whom? Did the plaintiff's decedent assent

to the flight knowing all the facts? Or were some facts withheld? And so

forth and so on.

I would say that the question of assumption of risk will be the principal

question in this litigation.

GG

>

> I Never said the lawsuit was frivolous in fact I think he can and

> prolly will win. The problem I have is an ethical one not a legal one

> we should be like family with who we work with and I can tell you if I

> was to die

> In a fire or ambulance crash or anything In between I don't want my

> family sueing my crew, partner or dept. In my opinion it makes my

> death vain soldiers families don't sue when thier children die

> fighting for our freedom because the soldier accpeted the job knowing

> he might die and I think the same goes for fire law enforecment and

> ems. What does blame accomplish other than making the pilot who is

> also deceased into " the bad guy " and to me that's wrong like you said

> the entire crew chooses whether or not to fly.

>

> -Chris

>

> Sorry about spelling and punctuation this was Sent from my iPhone

>

> On Apr 30, 2009, at 22:12, Hatfield

> wrote:

>

> >

> > You're right. When I flew, each member had a veto vote on the

> > flight. If you didn't feel right, you veto'd the flight and it

> > didn't go.

> >

> > That said, while we are in a business that is inherently dangerous

> > (at times), does NOT mean that we or anyone around us should

> > increase the risk. If anything, we should be working together to

> > minimize the risk.

> >

> > It's far from a fivilous lawsuit. In my humble (well, maybe not

> > humble) opinion, it has merit. is right, you have to fight

> > the larger companies on the bottom line.

> >

> > If PHI or the pilot were at fault, then how is the lawsuit

> > frivilous? How is it just about the money? Why shouldn't someone

> > take the blame? Isn't that where safety improvements start? Isn't

> > that what we want?

> >

> > Hatfield

> > www.michaelhatfield www

> >

> > Subject: RE: Dead PHI Crew Member's Spouse Sues

> > Company, Pilot's Estate

> > To: texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem

> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 9:53 PM

> >

> > If PHI chose to fly in weather that was clearly dangerous then they

> > are and should be liable for paying this man something for his loss.

> > I am sorry but flight paramedics knowing the risk and taking that

> > risk doesn't aleviate that liablitly from PHI and the Pilot if they

> > both chose to fly when there where definate criteria for grounding

> > the aircraft. The only things some companies listen to is the bottom

> > line. So maybe things will change if flying stupid costs their

> > bottom line alot. This case has merit and should be decided in a

> > court of law based on the facts most of which I doubt we are privy

> > to at this time. Its not our place to tell him to shut up and take

> > it when someone elses actions led to the loss of his wife. Let the

> > man have the day in court he is due.

> >

> > W. Vondran EMT-P

> >

> > To: texasems-l@yahoogro ups.com

> > From: haussecker87@ cebridge. net

> > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:52:51 -0500

> > Subject: Dead PHI Crew Member's Spouse Sues Company,

> > Pilot's Estate

> >

> > RH

> > http://www.kbtx. com/home/ headlines/ 44087637. html

> >

Posted April 30, 2009 · April 30, 2009

Wes is right. Sometimes you have to do things that are unpleasant in

order to sustain your claims. As I said in another post, after the funerals,

all bets are off. People will look to their own self-interests, and notions

of camaraderie will soon fade.

GG

>

> They might need to do that to sustain one of their claims against the

> company.Â They may be looking to sue the company under a theory of vicarious

> liability.

>

> I haven't seen the pleadings or the evidence, so I'm not going to comment

> too much.Â That's why we have courts, judges, juries, and yes, even

> lawyers.

>

> -Wes

>

> Dead PHI Crew Member's Spouse Sues Company,

> > > Pilot's Estate

> > >

> > > RH

> > > http://www.kbtx. com/home/ headlines/ 44087637. html

> > >

Posted April 30, 2009 · April 30, 2009

Speaking as one who has lost a spouse in a work related fatal incident that

was not near as complex as this incident I will agree with Gene in that

once the funerals are over it all becomes a case of the lawyers and the

actuaries and the rest of the bean counters. Thus is the system we have in this

Country like it or not.

ly, no one has a right to question the underlying motives for this

lawsuit nor is it in my opinion is it proper to speculate as to what the

deceased would have wanted in this situation since I know no one can state that

as fact.

As has been suggested let the system do its job and sort out the legalities

and leave it to those that have rights and vested interests in the case.

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant

LNMolino@...

(Cell Phone)

(IFW/FSS Office)/

(IFWF/SS Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

" Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds

discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and

the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only

for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential

materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public

domain by the original author.

In a message dated 4/30/2009 11:32:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,

wegandy1938@... writes:

As a lawyer for many years, I have the following perspective about

lawsuits

such as this one.

After the bodies are buried, those who are left tend to look to their

personal interests, rather than the interests of a profession.

I have no idea whether or not the suing spouse had any connection to EMS

or

HEMS, but when the funerals are done, people start to analyze what

happened, and they quite often become angry and seek recompense for

damages, such as

the loss of a spouse's companionship, loss of income, loss of benefits,

and

a bunch of other potential damages.

Loss of a spouse has both economic and emotional effects, and survivors

will look to place blame and recover damages. That's a fact of life.

This will be a complex case, no matter what side you're on. First, there

will be the question about whether or not the flight should ever have

happened, then there will be the question about who assented to it and who

did

not.

There is a concept in law known as " assumption of risk. " That means that

one may not be able to recover for damages caused by one's assent to the

risk. That will be an enormous and critical question in this lawsuit.

The law of " assumption of risk " is quite complex, and in Texas, there is a

plethora of cases that seem contradictory, anything but easy to

understand,

and confusing.

While we may say that we're a community, a band of Brothers and Sister,

and

so on, reality rears its head when things go wrong.

The legal system will sort out who's responsible to whom for what, and it

will take forever to do it.

The questions to be litigated are (1) who had a duty to whom for what; (2)

did somebody breach that duty; (3) did an injury occur that was

proximately caused by the breach; and (4) are there compensable damages.

Also, the

question of foreseeability will undoubtedly be litigated. Was the

probable

crash foreseeable? If so, to whom? Did the plaintiff's decedent assent

to the flight knowing all the facts? Or were some facts withheld? And

so