You shouldn’t have let my common-law husband and his drunken coterie onto your charter flight, they were too obviously a safety hazard, alleges the suit, filed in a British Columbia court. [CNN]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 3 comments }
If the pilot had refused the charter, then the story we’d be reading would be about a complaint to the BC Human Rights Commission about discrimination based on ethnic sterotyping — drunken natives with Firewater, etc., refused air charter. The common thread for both is the lack of basing remedies on the degree of personal responsibility shown by the alleged victims.
Additionally, assuming that the Cessnia had a traditional 2 in front (including the pilot) and 2 behind seating arrangement, what was the person in the other back seat doing while the woman used her legs to allegedly pushed the pilot’s seat forward into the controls and and hold the pilot there while the plane nose-dived into the water? (And, was that person Plaintiff’s decedent or his sister?)
Am I reading this correctly? Didn’t that passenger effectively murder the pilot and the passengers?
Robert: Yes
Comments on this entry are closed.