Texas jury has found Textron Lycoming entirely to blame for

[StewartB]

How come SB and I are the only ones that see whats going on here.

Seems that just maybe, the above fact should turn a light on back there in the grey matter somewhere. :-?

Okay, here's a grey matter exercise for you. Lycoming contacts 1400 customers and replaces their new crankshafts. Perhaps out of the goodness of their hearts, perhaps out of fear that since 12 people died already, and more might die if they didn't do something to correct an absolutely verifyable flaw. Later, after some litigation goes against Lycoming, Lycoming decides to try to sue their crank forging vendor for $173 million dollars, stating the entire flaw was the vendor's fault.

Note that Lycoming never said there wasn't a major flaw. They acknowledged that there was one from the day they started replacing all those cranks. What Lycoming did was to present the argument that the guys in Texas that pound Lycoming steel into crankshafts were completely at fault. Meanwhile, TCM has suffered through the same problem, identified what was happening, and dealt with it in a different manner. Lycoming, instead of saying the vanadium content was excessive, said the cranks were overheated. So they took responsibility for excess vanadium?

If Lycoming changes the materials or manufacturing process of an historically adequate part, those changes require re-engineering of the product to assure the changes don't adversely affect that product. It seems they didn't do that. Not only that, then they blame the unanticipated problem on somebody else, and back it up with what the reports call "fraudulent engineering reports." Fraudulent reports. Lycoming built bad parts, killed a few people, and then lied about it. And then tried to pin it on somebody else. That's what earned Lycoming the punitive award.

Almost certainly the attorneys that represented the Texas company were not ambulance chasers. They were fending-off a hostile claim by Lycoming for $173 million dollars in liability that they didn't think was correctly attributed to that Texas company. They stood in court fighting a corporate giant and it's very capable attorneys. And they prevailed.

It appears that most of the comments about this case are based upon the punitive award, not the reasons for it. In fact it seems that the comments reflect negativity towards the punitive damage process. So be it. This award was legally decided upon by a jury, and since the presiding judge didn't set it aside instantly, it well may have merit. The issue is that we trust Lycoming and other companies not to risk our lives in order to make more money. Perhaps my interest is stronger since I've had two engines fail from deficient parts, and another that was torn-down twice before it had the crank replaced because the vanadium content was too high. I take this issue very seriously. Hey mister, that's my family in that airplane.

I won't shed any tears for Lycoming or TCM for the expenses they incurred. Whether voluntarily, like TCM, or enforced, like Lycoming.
I pay them both way too much money for what I receive. Especially in light of cases like this one.

SB

 

[mvivion]

SB,

Cases like this are precisely why you pay them way too much for an antiquated product.

MTV

 

[StewartB]

And it makes room for enterprises like Superior's Vantage engines. Natural selection at work.

SB

 

[leon tallman]

texas jury

What do you call a lawyer with a 50 IQ? your honor

 

[bob turner]

What if there were no penalty for a defective product? Would most corporations strive for perfection out of some higher duty to mankind? Should we give a pass to Enron? I actually don't have an answer, but the idea behind punitive damages is to get their attention. Maybe the punis should go somewhere else, and the actual damages to the victim. Something to think about. The cure is in the ballot box.

Did'ja hear the rumors about ATC privatization? I'm too old to worry much about it, but wait 'till you hear the screaming when they figure out user fees! We are actually in pretty good shape right now - my opinion.

 

[PA-10]

"What if there were no penalty for a defective product? Would most corporations strive for perfection out of some higher duty to mankind?"

I always strive for mediocrity and schlock in my business! Of course everyone has perfection as their ultimate goal. Sometimes "the management" has other ideas.

 

[Aviator]

In large corporations, where the shareholders and directors are often other corporations represented by accountants and lawyers, every decision is driven by $$$. There are no moral issues, no legal constraints, no social responsibility. There's only the bottom line. Everything else, human life included, is subordinate to financial performance. Every time these industry giants plan, move, breath, blow their noses, or do anything else, good or bad, they do so to improve the corporation's Balance Sheet. So the only way to discipline the greedy is to cut into its year-end results. And the jury knew it.

 

[PA-10]

I used to work for a big company where the management actually said they didn't strive to be the best, just the most profitable. At least they were honest. However, they did not knowingly produce unsafe products. There was always a minimum standard (building codes) to meet. Engineers still designed conservatively out of self defence.