And now it starts. First lawsuit over 3407

Not a lawyer, but considering I was intimately involved in an aviation related lawsuit (my Dad's accident), I will speak up...





  • They name as many possible things as they can in the suit - cast the net wide, as it were, and will peel off non-starters as information comes out.
That about sums it up. You include anything and anyone that might have in the least little bit contributed to the accident. In a situation like this, everybody. Wouldn't even surprise me if they included the flight crew. Then as facts come in, you can drop the ones that are not responsible/involved, and go after the "big fish" so to speak. As far as filing early... the earlier you file, the better organized you can get and put the defense "on notice" thus opening yourself to documentation that you otherwise would not have access to. Sometimes attorneys want to see some of the "evidence" for themselves, so the sooner, the better.

Aren't you putting a price on human life by saying they get money for services and such, and that should be enough? Obviously no amount of money will replace a loved one but families have got to survive. It's likely the soul on board was reponsible for putting food on the table, paying bills and the mortgage etc.
This is no way any commentary on the accident in question, just a response to the above post.

Exactly. Think of it this way... Husband and wife, mid 50s. Husband is primary bread winner of household, kid in college, mortgage, car payment. Husband goes on a pleasure flight to see friends is killed while enroute. All of a sudden, you have a widow and a child without a father. They didn't ask for this, they didn't plan for this. Sure, there is his retirement and social security, but she can't touch it for several years (and if she remarries, social security is no longer an option). Sure there is his life insurance that will pay double in the event of an accidental deat... oh wait, that is null and void if you are flying on an airplane (some policies are like that). And since it was not job related, no workers comp either.

Basically what you end up with is a widow with a mediocre job, and life insurance that will be paid out over a couple of years then nothing. Yeah, she could get a better job, but she had been doing this for years and in this economy she can't find anything else, and can't afford to quit and go back to school. Somewhere down the line, she is risking her vehicle, her house, and possibly her job.

In situations like this, someone or something has to be responsible. NOT speculating at all, but even if a wing had fallen off, someone would still have sued somebody. There have been too many cases come before the courts already to think otherwise. It is why businesses carry liability insurance, just for instances like these.

I hear you man. I didn't even think lawsuits could happen at all until causes were released, which they haven't been.

Nope. The lawsuit in my Dad's case was filed before the preliminary report by the NTSB even came out. Now that being said, the ball really did not get rolling really good until the final documents were released. It was almost like the attorneys were collecting and collecting, got the final report, and BAM! started pushing for things to happen and happen quickly.
 
Is there no fine-print on a place ticket saying something to the effect that flying is to some degree dangerous and you fly at your own risk, I mean I had to fill out paperwork to go skydiving, can't even sue the guy who mowed the landing zone grass (not kidding) so I would imagine airline companies would have this little disclaimer in there somewhere.
 
Aren't you putting a price on human life by saying they get money for services and such, and that should be enough? Obviously no amount of money will replace a loved one but families have got to survive. It's likely the soul on board was reponsible for putting food on the table, paying bills and the mortgage etc.
This is no way any commentary on the accident in question, just a response to the above post.

As much as people hate to hear it, EVERYTHING has a price, even a "human life". Airlines, insurance companies, auto manufacturers, and on and on and on...it is called "risk management". Many of the recommendations that are made by folks like the NTSB aren't adopted because it is not cost effective. A good example is the aged fuel tank wiring in the classic 747 fleet. NTSB wanted nitrogen inerting in the tanks to reduce the chance of an explosion like TWA 800, but it isn't worth the cost for the relative low-risk and low number of lives that have/will be lost.

This is why everyone named in the suit(s) have insurance.
 
You can bet Colgan, Continental and Bombardier are pressing for a finding of pilot error.

You can also bet the lawyers are praying for a finding of no pilot error.

Because if the pilots are not found to be at fault, the deep pockets of Colgan, Continental and Bombardier will certainly be plumbed for the most cash the ambulance chasers can get.
 
Is there no fine-print on a place ticket saying something to the effect that flying is to some degree dangerous and you fly at your own risk, I mean I had to fill out paperwork to go skydiving, can't even sue the guy who mowed the landing zone grass (not kidding) so I would imagine airline companies would have this little disclaimer in there somewhere.

Airlines, manufacturers etc are insured. This cost is passed onto customers through pricing. Comparing sky diving to taking a commercial flight isn't an appropriate comparison (reason you had to sign a waiver is that the risk of injury from skydiving is relatively high that to pass this cost onto the customer would be bad for business - that is no one could afford it so you sign and take your chance).
 
Airlines are insured, too. Bob Crandall once said AA could suffer 3 hull losses a year and not hurt the bottom line.

Lawyers know this. That's why they're hoping the pilots are exonerated. The settlement money will come from Colgan, Continental and Bombardier's insurance companies.
 
I am surprised they didn't also name the pilot's estates in the mix. I hate aviation law on the civil side.
 
I am surprised they didn't also name the pilot's estates in the mix. I hate aviation law on the civil side.

Probably because the estates haven't been opened. It would be in the best interest of the families to consult with a legal professional to see if they absolutely have to open an estate right now.
 
According to law, attorneys are prohibited from contacting the victims families for 45 days after the crash. After that it's fair game.

It may be that way in the state you live in, but I'm fairly certain each state has their own laws regarding this...hence the term "ambulance chaser".
 
I do not think the attorneys would press for the crews families to lose their homes, liquid cash, etc. I believe the attorneys wouldn't pursue the families that hard - unless the pilots had some kind of personal liability insurance that could be tapped. I think the attorneys are smart enough to only go after things that are insured and understand that the pilots themselves probably have pretty minimal assets. Pilot error would still tigger Colgan's insurance wouldn't it Velo? I mean, they are just as liable for pilot error as they would be for a maintainence error aren't they? What have you seen/know about that - wondering what has been done in the past.
 
I do not think the attorneys would press for the crews families to lose their homes, liquid cash, etc. I believe the attorneys wouldn't pursue the families that hard - unless the pilots had some kind of personal liability insurance that could be tapped. I think the attorneys are smart enough to only go after things that are insured and understand that the pilots themselves probably have pretty minimal assets. Pilot error would still tigger Colgan's insurance wouldn't it Velo? I mean, they are just as liable for pilot error as they would be for a maintainence error aren't they? What have you seen/know about that - wondering what has been done in the past.

In most states I think your primary residence is exempt from being ceased as a result of a civil case. At least in TX, I don't think they can garnish your wages either.
 
I hear you man. I didn't even think lawsuits could happen at all until causes were released, which they haven't been.
I'm not a lawyer but there is a very specific reason why they sue before the conclusion of the investigation it has to do with the ability to gather evidence for the case (or something like that, I can't remember the exact reasons...)
 
Is there no fine-print on a place ticket saying something to the effect that flying is to some degree dangerous and you fly at your own risk, I mean I had to fill out paperwork to go skydiving, can't even sue the guy who mowed the landing zone grass (not kidding) so I would imagine airline companies would have this little disclaimer in there somewhere.

But you can't waive negligence - just because it's in a contract, doesn't mean responsibility can be waived. The courts have in the past overturned wild waiver policies when deemed absurd. I can't have you sign something saying that I'm not responsible for your safety in my home, and then throw snakes at you or something. It's not as cut and dry as this.
 
It may be that way in the state you live in, but I'm fairly certain each state has their own laws regarding this...hence the term "ambulance chaser".

That varies widely state to state.

``(2) Unsolicited communications.--In the event of an
accident involving an air carrier providing interstate or
foreign air transportation, no unsolicited communication
concerning a potential action for personal injury or wrongful
death may be made by an attorney or any potential party to the
litigation to an individual injured in the accident, or to a
relative of an individual involved in the accident, before the
30th day following the date of the accident.

**30th day was amended to 45th day**

http://www.ntsb.gov/Family/Docu_ of_ all Curr_ Legis_ 8_24_06.pdf
 
Aren't you putting a price on human life by saying they get money for services and such, and that should be enough? Obviously no amount of money will replace a loved one but families have got to survive. It's likely the soul on board was reponsible for putting food on the table, paying bills and the mortgage etc.
This is no way any commentary on the accident in question, just a response to the above post.
:yeahthat:

There will be a settlement. This is a standard first step in getting that settlement, filing the lawsuit. For better or worse that is how the system works. If the company did the "right thing" that could be an admission of guilt. Bottom line, the passengers didn't get there safe and sound, and somebody's gotta pay. Fact of life, cost of business.
 
But you can't waive negligence - just because it's in a contract, doesn't mean responsibility can be waived. The courts have in the past overturned wild waiver policies when deemed absurd. I can't have you sign something saying that I'm not responsible for your safety in my home, and then throw snakes at you or something. It's not as cut and dry as this.
You are talking willful negligence, and are correct.
 
Shouldn't be any surprise, this is what always occurs, in any accident of any cause.

That said, people are going to have to be prepared for whatever probable cause and factors therein that come out of this accident. Whether it be aircraft related, WX related, navaid related, etc, or any combination therein; people are going to have to be open to any possibility, to include crew-error. I know the latter is not something that people with a personal stake in this particular accident want to have to face; but whatever the cause, everyone will need to acknowledge that cause and apply the lessons learned from it. That's best thing that can be taken from a tragedy like this one....the best that we as pilots can do for the sacrifice this crew, pax and one person on the ground made in this accident.
 
Back
Top