Appeals Court Restores Damages In Missouri Skydiving Accident | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.20.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.28.24

Airborne-FlightTraining-05.29.24 Airborne-Unlimited-05.30.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.24.24

Thu, May 09, 2013

Appeals Court Restores Damages In Missouri Skydiving Accident

Pilot And Five Passengers Fatally Injured In 2006

The Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled that the families of four of the five skydivers who were fatally injured when the plane they were in went down on July 29th, 2006, are due $28 million in punitive damages. The families will also divide $20 million in compensatory damages.

The verdict against Doncasters Inc., a company that sold engine parts which were blamed for the accident by the plaintiff's attorneys, had initially been reduced by the amount of the punitive damages when the trial judge said that the company did not have "actual knowledge" of anything wrong with the parts installed in the de Haviland Twin Otter, and that there was no evidence that the company showed “complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others.” That ruling had been upheld by an appeals court panel that reviewed the case earlier this year.

The Tuesday, the full Court of Appeals voted 9-3 to reinstate the full amount awarded by the jury, according to a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

During the trial, attorneys for the plaintiffs said that Doncasters used an alloy not specified by Pratt and Whitney Canada for a compressor turbine blade that failed, and then covered up failed performance tests. The company's attorneys said during the appeal that the jury was allowed to hear evidence that they were not supposed to hear.

The family of a fifth skydiver on board the plane did not participate in the lawsuit.

According to the NTSB, the probable cause of the accident was the pilot's failure to maintain airspeed following a loss of power in the right engine due to the fracturing of compressor turbine blades for undetermined reasons. Contributing to some parachutists' injuries was the lack of a more effective restraint system on the airplane.

FMI: NTSB Report

Advertisement

More News

ANN FAQ: Contributing To Aero-TV

How To Get A Story On Aero-TV News/Feature Programming How do I submit a story idea or lead to Aero-TV? If you would like to submit a story idea or lead, please contact Jim Campbel>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.29.24)

Aero Linx: International Association of Professional Gyroplane Training (IAPGT) We are an Association of people who fly, build or regulate Gyroplanes, who have a dream of a single >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.29.24): NORDO (No Radio)

NORDO (No Radio) Aircraft that cannot or do not communicate by radio when radio communication is required are referred to as “NORDO.”>[...]

Airborne 05.28.24: Jump Plane Down, Starship's 4th, Vision Jet Problems

Also: uAvionix AV-Link, F-16 Viper Demo, TN National Guard, 'Staff the Towers' A Saturday afternoon jump run, originating from SkyDive Kansas City, went bad when it was reported th>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.30.24): Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS)

Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS) The operation of a UAS beyond the visual capability of the flight crew members (i.e., remote pilot in command [RPIC], the person manipulating th>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC