Isn't extremely high liability insurance costs a structural part of the aviation industry? I'm sure many of the same forces drive companies away from the nuclear power industry.
Regardless, I can hold both thoughts in my head at the same time: that we need punitive damages to ensure that companies don't factor in predictable loss-of-life liability into their business plans, as they do with many other liabilities, and that we need to consider whether punitive damages are out of control. Greenspun apparently can't.
$53 million in compensatory damage against a carburetor company for the crash of a single-engined 2-seater due to an exhaust valve failure? (Because the carb was recently replaced, and thus was within the statute of limitations.) http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/torts-damages/8890265-1.htm...
Granted, that's only one case, but how many $500 carbs does that company have to sell to cover $53mm in exposure? How many more times than the tiny market for those carbs (that engine is no longer in use in a production aircraft)? I've left explicit instructions to my family that if I should pass crashing my airplane, that they are not to sue my maintenance facility or anyone else in the aviation industry. I hope that never comes to pass, but if it does, I wouldn't want to be part of perpetuating this ridiculousness.
First, liability is clearly a structural disadvantage of the aviation industry. But that doesn't make it a crisis for business in general.
Second, the story you've cited seems not to be a clear cut case of tort abuse. The plaintiffs built a case around an FAA finding that implicated the carb, they were armed with a record of unanswered complaints about the same carb part, and the carb company staged an ineffective defense, blaming ice, oil changes, and pilot errors in ways that were apparently easily refuted.
Third, even if this was a clear-cut case of tort abuse, it doesn't really answer my argument. I concede that tort abuse is an issue. I just think it's ludicrous to respond to it by eliminating the concept of punitive damages. Companies really do factor predictable liabilities into their business plans. Look how every health care organization handles HIPAA.
If were to drive carelessly and make this happen to these two guys, i'd have to pay to fix it, and likely go to jail. For some reason, we're not allowed to simply suspend a company's business license, so we have to make due with fines and fees.
I don't think punitive damages should go to the victim. I do think punitive damages are worthwhile. It's not any one person's fault, it's the fault of the organization as a whole. The organization as a whole should suffer as i would suffer if i did something similar.
Regardless, I can hold both thoughts in my head at the same time: that we need punitive damages to ensure that companies don't factor in predictable loss-of-life liability into their business plans, as they do with many other liabilities, and that we need to consider whether punitive damages are out of control. Greenspun apparently can't.