 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / November 2004It's different this time around
SpaceRef has a new story about Spacehab suing NASA for $79.7M damages in the loss of their Research Double Module in the Columbia disaster http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15462 NASA wants to settle for $8M, per a contract liability clause. It's different this time. In the first shuttle disaster the government-owned TDRSS payload was lost when Challenger exploded, so, IIRC, there were no lawsuits over loss of payloads in that explosion. Now a court, rather than an accident investigation board, gets to hear arguments about alleged NASA negligence, lack of adherence to its own flight rules, deliberate misleading of NASA decision-makers by low-level NASA employees regarding flight risks, organizational deficiencies, and poor engineering practices. This should be interesting. Later Ray Schmitt > Now a court, rather than an accident investigation board, gets to hear > arguments about alleged NASA negligence, lack of adherence to its own flight > rules, deliberate misleading of NASA decision-makers by low-level NASA > employees regarding flight risks, organizational deficiencies, and poor > engineering practices. If it gets that far. I imagine the DoJ will very shortly file a motion to dismiss on the basis of the liquidated damages clause in the contract. If and only if the SpaceHab suit survives such a motion by the government, the case will proceed through discovery and (maybe) a trial. Most if not all lawsuits end prior to trial, either through voluntary dismissal (i.e., the plaintiffs giving up), involuntary dismissal (i.e., the court ordering a dismissal for various and sundry procedural or substantive defects in the case), or settlement. > This should be interesting. Only to lawyers unless it goes to trial, which is very unlikely. Of course, I'm not involved in this case but I'm writing this after spending a good part of my afternoon at a federal district court case management conference in one case, then running upstairs at the Federal Building to visit the AUSA defending the government in a VA medical malpractice case of ours. I'm feeling a little jaded about the prospects for "truth" in this kind of contractual case, I guess. :-/  SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert A. Heinlein <http://www.angryherb.net> > > Now a court, rather than an accident investigation board, gets to hear > > arguments about alleged NASA negligence, lack of adherence to its own flight [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > dismissal (i.e., the court ordering a dismissal for various and sundry > procedural or substantive defects in the case), or settlement. Or maybe we'll be treated to a mini A-12 go-round. Later Ray Schmitt "Herb Schaltegger" . > If it gets that far. I imagine the DoJ will very shortly > file a motion to dismiss on the basis of the liquidated > damages clause in the contract. It seems logical that the damages would be determined prior to the loss, since the risk of a loss is a real possibility when it involves launching a vehicle into orbit. So why is SpaceHab sueing? Say they can show that NASA screwed things up in a really bad way. Would this allow them to collect damages greater than the contract specifies? I mean, to put it another way, if NASA decides to screw up a mission, is it really any of SpaceHab's business? > "Herb Schaltegger" . > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > than the contract specifies? I mean, to put it another way, if NASA > decides to screw up a mission, is it really any of SpaceHab's business? Well, reasons for invalidating liquidated damages provisions can get you pretty deep into the messy guts of contract law. I'm having flashbacks to my 1L year right not just thinking about it. But to (over)generalize, some of the reasons SpaceHab might be suing might include: - a sufficient change of circumstances since the contract was executed which warrant increased damages. This might be because the contract was executed ten or fifteen years ago and the damages provisions were set then while the value of the hardware in the module and the potential for lost income has increased substantially since; - the idea that NASA's management screwed up substantially in evaluating the potential damage from foam shedding such that it increased the risk of SpaceHab's damages over and above what was contemplated by the parties when the contract was executed; - Sometimes contracts include provisions for escalated damages if the damages claimed by the offending party aren't timely paid and SpaceHab might be invoking some kind of similar provision, although not having seen the complaint in the case I can't say. There are more possible reasons but thinking about them early on a Saturday without my second cup of coffee makes my head hurt, so that will have to do for now. :-) SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert A. Heinlein <http://www.angryherb.net> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.