Can this really happen?

[pro151]

You said it anyway

 

[GLR]

You said it anyway

A whole bucket full of dicks.

 

[towerdog]

Robb, I'm not disagreeing that any of the claims made by the RC owner are a big stretch. If he's going to pursue any legal course of action, he has a big uphill battle ahead, IMO.



This is the part that I was disagreeing with you about. The RC owner can file whatever type of frivolous civil suite he wants, regardless of any criminal proceedings. Let's suppose for a minute that the FCC does decide to take up a criminal case because they feel some law was violated (not gonna happen, btw). BammBamm could be found not guilty at trial and then the RC owner could STILL file a civil suit. Because the burden of proof is so much lighter in a civil case, BammBamm could still lose the civil suit.

I don't know what evidence exists neither does anyone else except for the OP. To me, it seems like a big stretch that anything is going to come of this, regardless of what the RC owner does. This whole thing sounds like posturing by the RC owner in an attempt to get someone else to pay for a new plane by threatening a suit.

Yeah, like OJ Simpson.

 

[psycho]

Contrary to your suggestion, this isn't an issue of differing burdens of proof. This is a question of whether there is evidence to support a lawsuit.

The evidence of civil liability is slim to none. At a minimum, proof of liability means there is evidence of a negligent breach of some recognized duty under the law. A person is not negligent, and cannot be held liable for the destruction of a RC helicopter, just because he is operating a CB as he drives by the location where the RC helicopter is being operated. There must be something negligent about the operation of the CB that would make the destruction of the RC helicopter foreseeable. The idea of civil liability on these sparse facts is ludicrous on its face. In short, the helicopter owner may file a lawsuit, but there is no guarantee that he will win on those facts.

HOWEVER, if the state and/or federal courts take action first, and find the CB operator guilty of a crime, the RC helicopter owner wouldn't need any further proof. The prior criminal judgment in either a federal or state court works as a substitute for proof in a later civil action. I'm not saying this is likely. I'm saying that much stronger proof as reflected in a judgment would be required to make out this case.

The whole notion of a conviction/judgement based on the info supplied is pretty much baseless in the eyes of the law.
R/C transmitters are very low power and are 1 watt max.

 

[GLR]

Yeah, like OJ Simpson.

a bucket full of dicks for him as well