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]
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]
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