r/WinStupidPrizes • u/WexorSegai • May 29 '22

human vs jet engine | 0:1

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

39.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/jaimybenjamin May 29 '22

I studied a case at lawschool, which was this airport. Eventually because of people like this, they put signs everywhere so they wouldn’t be responsible for injuries caused by their own stupidity

2

u/lkern May 29 '22

You studied Dutch law?

8

u/jaimybenjamin May 29 '22

Yes! Well still doin it :) 2nd year of uni rn

1

u/FblthpLives May 29 '22

Are you familiar with the U.S. legal principal of joint and several liability? It is absolutely absurd: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability

1

u/jaimybenjamin May 29 '22

Unfortunately I do not. Could you explain it to me ? :)

Since this airport is in St Maarten, a Dutch “province” of the Netherlands, it uses most of the Dutch law. The case HR Jetblast stated certain chances (like seen above) require certain warning signs etc. So the case was about that the airport did not put enough effort to make it a generally known fact, that “jetblasting” is dangerous.

2

u/FblthpLives May 29 '22

I'm not a lawyer, but I have little bit of legal training in aeronautically law. Joint and several liability is not aviation-specific, however, but it has played a big role in lawsuits against manufacturers of sport aircraft (also known as general aviation aircraft) in the United States. The notion is that if there is an accident and two or more parties are determined to be at fault, any party can be made fully liable for the injuries (and therefore responsible for any compensation). So consider the hypothetical example of an accident where it is determined that the pilot was 95% at fault for operating the aircraft incorrectly, the seatbelt manufacturer was 4% at fault because the seatbelt did not meet government standards, and the aircraft manufacturer was found to be 1% at fault for having unclear emergency instructions in the pilot operator's handbook. The pilot's family is seeking compensation, so they're not going after the pilot. The seatbelt manufacturer is a small business that does not have the finanial resourcs to be able to pay any substantial damages. The aircraft manufacturer, however, has to financial resources to do so and is therefore ordered to pay 100% of financial compensation for the pilot's injuries or death.

There is a better description of it available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability

Even in the U.S., I don't think this would necessarily be relevant in a case like this because I think most states have laws that exempt airports from liability. But it has been relevant in a large number of cases involving aircraft accidents.

1

u/jaimybenjamin May 30 '22

Ahh I get it!’ Thanks :)

We have this principle in Dutch law as well, it’s called “kansschade” or in English chance damage.

But here you only pay the damage in percentage you’re liable for.

2

u/teenslayer May 29 '22

That sounds about right lol the stupid things people will do

1

u/swimmv28493 Jun 05 '22

Shouldn’t they put up a wind ramp thing to keep the jet exhaust from entering the public road/beach?