Jaw-Dropping Helicopter Collision: Ultimate Compensation
How does shared fault affect a big injury verdict? It reduces recovery proportionally, explains Pierce County, Washington attorney Spencer Freeman, discussing a case where a court found the government 60% liable and the plaintiff 40%. He notes defense teams routinely try to discredit plaintiffs—citing alcohol or medication, or scouring social media—even when those facts don't prove actual impairment or recovery.
Excerpt summaries from the video and transcripts · how we make them
Answered by Spencer Freeman · Pierce County, WA
Highlights
— the unusual facts: a snowmobile colliding with a parked helicopter at night
— how comparative negligence cut the award by the plaintiff's 40% share
— why placing a helicopter on a snowmobile trail was itself negligent
— how the defense used alcohol and medication to attack the claim
— the federal-tort-claims immunity argument the government raised
Frequently Asked Questions
How does shared fault affect a big verdict?
It reduces recovery proportionally—in one case the court found the government 60% liable and the plaintiff 40%, so comparative negligence cut the award by the plaintiff's share.
What made the case unusual?
The facts—a snowmobile colliding at night with a parked helicopter, where placing a helicopter on a snowmobile trail was itself negligent.
How did the defense attack the claim?
By citing alcohol and medication and scouring social media to discredit the plaintiff, even though those facts didn't prove actual impairment or affect recovery.
What immunity did the government raise?
A federal-tort-claims immunity argument, a defense the government asserted to limit its liability.
→ Full interview on Attorneys.Media
More Legal Commentary answers
Legal news in Washington
Links to outside sources. Not written or reviewed by the attorney.