Motorist killed by aircraft

[tillmanr]

ABC just in reporting that a Californian in a parked car has been hit by an aircraft attempting to land on a motorway. Experimental/kit I think but I will allow others to name the type.

 

 

[red750]

Lancair IV

 

 

 

[kaz3g]

They seem to be involved in an awful lot of fatals...Kaz

 

 

[gibby]

Also heard on the news earlier that the same plane had suffered engine failure 15 years ago and had landed on a road with a much better result

 

 

[Yenn]

Would that be a Jabiru engine?

 

Tongue in cheek.

 

 

[quentas]

^not even slightly funny^

 

 

[Fairoaks Flyer]

I heard it was a Lancair

 

 

[Montymagic]

I wonder if the pilot had 3rd party insurance...hehehehe

 

 

[SDQDI]

I wonder if the pilot had 3rd party insurance...hehehehe

It certainly isn't a laughing matter and is something that we all should have.

Even if we aren't running into cars, if we stuff up and run into an expensive plane the damages bill could be a huge financial strain always with the possibility that you lose the family home ect (this is putting aside the fact of killing someone and all that that can entail!)

 

IMO insurance is something that is priceless when needed and it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it!

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

I understand there is some act or law where one cannot 'lose the family home' when being sued. Anybody know if that is the case?

 

 

[jetjr]

I think there are limits, likely you wont have the same family home

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I understand there is some act or law where one cannot 'lose the family home' when being sued. Anybody know if that is the case?

Nope. An asset is an asset. If you are ordered to compensate someone by the courts then what ever it takes to do that is what you have to do. Whether it means selling any or all of the assets you have or getting a loan even.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I understand there is some act or law where one cannot 'lose the family home' when being sued. Anybody know if that is the case?

If fly an aircraft, own an aircraft, store an aircraft etc. you are in a position to make a mistake, forget something, or in a million other ways be alleged to have been negligent.

If that is the case and someone claims a few million in damages, plus costs for their lawyer and you pay costs for your lawyer, and you are found to have been negligent you have to pay those millions.

 

Most times your family home will be petty cash in the action anyway, but you can either pay it by selling your assets, or by having yourself covered by public liability insurance, depending on which you prefer.

 

 

[Yenn]

Doesn't RAAus have insurance cover for its owners?

 

 

[SDQDI]

Doesn't RAAus have insurance cover for its owners?

RAA membership does include "some" insurance but it doesn't include everything. It has been too long since I looked at it but when I did I thought it prudent to get some extra insurance off my own bat, now I don't have to rely on the cover RAA provides.

I think relying on RAA cover without being sure of what it covers would be a bit foolish. I think it included some public liability insurance but I don't think it was big on third party damages cover and I wouldn't think it gives you any comprehensive cover on your plane. Bottom of the line is be sure you are covered or are able to afford a big payout.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Nope. An asset is an asset. If you are ordered to compensate someone by the courts then what ever it takes to do that is what you have to do. Whether it means selling any or all of the assets you have or getting a loan even.

And just to expand a bit.

 

In Australia This applies to all assets over which you have substantial control. In other words, say you signed over all your assets to your wife and kids, but you retained full use of these assets and could have a say in the usual managements of those assets like selling replacing or upgrading then those assets may be deemed to be yours.

 

should you be sued and be found negligent and ordered to pay compensation then you may well still have to sell them to pay the compensation. It gets a bit grey in some scenarios but essentially the plaintiff is likely to invoke the rule and ask the court to decide on your "ownership".

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Nope. An asset is an asset. If you are ordered to compensate someone by the courts then what ever it takes to do that is what you have to do. Whether it means selling any or all of the assets you have or getting a loan even.

My car was written off when an idiot pulled out from the kerb while doing a U turn in front of me. Idiot said he was broke and couldn't pay compensation, I said fine, I'll take your car (he was driving his wife's at the time). My lawyer said nope, can't take his car or tools as they are needed for his work, that's when I also heard you can't take the house. I got my 'compensation' after some 'persuasion' but boy oh boy what a drama. It pays to have thugs as friends.

 

 

[PA.]

My car was written off and my wife's car sustained $14,000 damages when an uninsured girl who was texting ran into the back of us as we sat stationary at some lights. Our insurance company paid out on my car and repaired the wife's car without us paying anything and they then chased her for payment. I expect they are getting $50 a month for the next 50 years from her. Bottom line, not my problem, that's why I pay insurance.

 

 

[Ron5335]

And If you do have insurance you might not be safe either.

 

A recent case in the news, where a motorist had a seizure or similar and ploughed into another vehicle.

 

That vehicle's driver claimed the damages against the insurance company of the offending vehicle and it was denied, because it was a medical episode that caused the crash, not negligence and the owner would have to pursue the matter privately.

 

 

[Teckair]

I wonder if the pilot had 3rd party insurance...hehehehe

Another unfunny one. Someone was killed.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you insure your car it comprehensively, it will be covered. The most you could lose is the excess . Getting it from another insurance company has nothing to do with what insurance means. Nev

 

 

[Ron5335]

Nev, The point being .....

 

The driver that had the medical episode had insurance (Third Party Property) for any damage he may cause to other peoples property, so he thought he was covered, but he did cause damage and now he finds out he wasn't covered.

 

In hindsight, rather than saying he had blackout, he should have said.... I was day dreaming at the time, and would have been covered....

 

Great society we live in !!!!!!

 

 

[facthunter]

ALL insurance companies are good when you are paying the premiums. It's when you make a claim you find out if you have actually bought anything. Cheapest isn't always the best. Most are owned by the same mob. Nev

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

If you carry out any illegal activity, or drive or fly under the influence (and that covers some prescription drugs) and you end up in circumstances similar to this situation, you will not only find your insurance company wiping you off and at risk of losing your house, but also be facing a manslaughter or involuntary murder charge.