Lawyer For Crash Survivor Changes Claim; Passengers Not At Fault

A lawyer for the only survivor of Comair flight 5191says he's withdrawing a defense that claimed the passengers of the flight share blame for their deaths.

An attorney for co-pilot James Polehinke first said the passengers should have known the airport was dangerous because of a construction project
The claim also said passengers should have known the air traffic control tower was understaffed and taking off in the dark is dangerous.

Polehinke's attorneys now say the defense is not a proper one.

49 people died in the crash in August of 2006.

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Ross Location: Frankfort on Jan 29, 2008 at 05:25 AM
    No one--at least no one from Frankfort should be surprised by the depths this attorney will sink to. This story doesn't name him, but it is none other than (edited), who notably defended Shane Ragland, and also Jayma Hawkins, the charming young lady who beat her elderly grandma to death over drug money. He even ended up getting her pardoned by Fletcher. He's clearly morally bankrupt; and personally I don't know how he sleeps at night. Hey (edited), I hear there's a methed out trucker in Frankfort Regional who just killed a younger mother. I bet he needs a good attorney...
  • by Rob Location: London on Jan 28, 2008 at 09:40 PM
    Only a few words come to my mind.....WHAT A PEICE OF CRAP!!!!!I hope someone disbars this nutcase and make him work at an airport as an investigator and has to see all the horrific sights that plane crashes cause.A very distateful man.....A JOKE!!!
  • by paul Location: lex on Jan 28, 2008 at 07:42 PM
    i wonder if these idiots work for melbourne mills or shirly cunningham...possibly the big B*ll*hitter?
  • by Anonymous on Jan 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM
    I wonder where lawyers get their bad name...hummm?
  • by Absurd Location: ABSURDVILLE on Jan 26, 2008 at 07:13 AM
    No, what is absurd is going after the only survivor for money. Let the guy live in peace, sue the airport, sue the company,but leave this man alone. He has enough on his plate the rest of his life due to this accident.
  • by Mel Location: Lexington on Jan 26, 2008 at 04:06 AM
    Thankfully, the lawyers have received a wakeup call and dropped their ridiculous claim. This is ALL lawyers trying to make a name for themselves and nothing about Polehinke, the passengers, or the families left behind. Given what has been reported about Polehinke's brain injury, he probably doesn't have any idea what has been claimed, and certainly wasn't the one to suggest such a defense. The last I heard, he still didn't even have recollection of the crash. He should sue his lawyers for defamation because after this, he will certainly be the one people point at even more than they do now. There are MANY issues that contributed to the crash, but the passengers were not one, and Polehinke should not be held soley accountable just because he's the only one that survived.
  • by Dan Location: Nicholasville on Jan 25, 2008 at 07:17 PM
    I agree with ben. This is hardly a new low for lawyers. Funny thing, lawyers joke about things like this amongst themselves. This has everything to do with jockeying for position. Everyone looks for someone to blame no matter what the issue. If the blame can be solely placed on Mr Polehinke, he may be considered financially liable. This lawyer is trying to raise "a shadow of doubt" to prevent this. We have to consider that we are all pawns on a lawyers playground. Remember that of every dollar that changes hands, at least 30% will go into the pocket of a lawyer. Thus the reason for these lawsuits. Whatever happened to, "it isn't about the money, it is the principle of the matter." This adage has definitely gone by the wayside. Sad.
  • by steve Location: lincoln co... on Jan 25, 2008 at 06:17 PM
    So is it a passengers responsibility too make sure the lights on a runway are lite and well mainatained before getting on the plane, or how about make sure the control tower has someone whos resonsible enough too make sure a plane takes off down the right runway and doesnt look back too do paper work before the plane is in the air. are passengers suppose too make sure the control tower is well staffed before they board their flight..... what a bunch of lame crap... just another excuse from someone high power lawyer in a pengiun outfit trying too plane innocent passengers who lost their lives due too PILOT ERROR....
  • by dizay on Jan 25, 2008 at 05:00 PM
    "not a proper defense" is an understatement. Get him his sign.
  • by deedee on Jan 25, 2008 at 03:47 PM
    "...the passengers should have known the airport was dangerous because of a construction project?!? passengers should have known the air traffic control tower was understaffed and taking off in the dark is dangerous?!?" What the heck would a passenger know about air traffic control!! The lawyer is a well, nevermind. How VERY generous of him to withdraw that ridiculous defense.
  • Page:


2851 Winchester Rd. Lexington, Ky 40509 859-299-0411 - switchboard 859-299-2727 - newsroom
Register for Email
RSS Feeds
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 14310287 -
Gray Television, Inc.