September 11 Cases Vs. Airlines Get Go-Ahead

Joshua949

New Member
Before you read the story below i just want to say something....why are they sueing these companies before..they clearly has no idea that Sept. 11 was going to happen...if they were going to sue somebody it should be the FBI & u.s. gov. b/c they were the ones who knew that Sept. 11 was coming...i mean hello here....& another thing...if these buildings didnt have good evacuation routes & the same for airplanes...then why didnt these people file a lawsuit before sept. 11 b/c i dont think that they changed the evacuation route & made it any harder...hello..people..

[ QUOTE ]
September 11 Cases Vs Airlines Get Go-Ahead
Tue September 9, 2003 02:05 PM ET
By Gail Appleson

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss Sept. 11th lawsuits brought against airlines, aircraft makers and World Trade Center owners by victims' families and those injured, who charge that negligence played a key role in the attacks two years ago.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein allows the litigation to proceed against the American Airlines unit of AMR Corp., UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, jet maker Boeing Co. and other defendants including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and World Trade Center Properties.

Hellerstein's ruling does not determine liability but paves the way for the next stage of proceedings.

The plaintiffs charged that the airlines were negligent in failing to carry out adequate security measures. They argued that the airlines are liable for the attacks because they failed to stop hijackers from entering the cockpits of the four hijacked planes.

The airlines argued they should not be held liable because the unprecedented attacks were unforeseeable and they had followed safety measures required by the federal government.


RELATED ARTICLES
AIRLINES-EUROPE-SARS-HOT CORRECTED
TORONTO (Reuters) - WestJet Airlines Ltd . on Tuesday reported a
Alaska Air Unveils In-Flight Video Service
International Air Traffic Drops 3.6 Pct in July

Boeing was sued for what the plaintiffs called negligent plane design.

The plaintiffs accused the owners and operator of the World Trade Center of negligently designing buildings without adequate evacuation routes.

The ruling is being widely watched by families who must choose whether to join the litigation or seek payment from a national compensation fund.

The deadline for filing with the fund, which was created by Congress to help protect the airline industry from litigation, is Dec. 22. As of late August, some 2,275 claims had been filed but about 1,700 families had yet to decide whether to enroll with the fund or join litigation.

The lawsuit before Hellerstein was brought by 70 of the injured and representatives of those who died as well as by 10 entities that suffered property damage. Many other cases have been filed but have not yet been heard.

A federal act passed in the weeks following Sept. 11, 2001 dictates that all suits over damages growing out of the hijackings be filed in Manhattan federal court.

About 3,000 people were killed in the hijacked airline attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and in the air crash in rural Pennsylvania.

[/ QUOTE ]
 

pilot602

If specified, this will replace the title that
Blatant profiteering by the families. Sorry to say it, but they're rapidly approaching just being flat out greedy.

Yes it was a tradgedy. Yes mistakes were made. No you don't derserve to profit from the deaths of those you "loved." The govt. compensation plan - which in and of itself they don't really deserve - was far more than what an average (for the income leves involved) life insurance policy would have paid - plus it was tax free. To waive that so as to sue is simply an act of trying to go after more money. Hence greed.

Makes me sick ...

But the first rule of a lawsuit: sue those who have the money and who will more than likely settle.

The government can tie a lawsuit up in court for any length of time they wish. Private corporations/compaines usually don't have those kinds of resources - so they settle.
 

MQAAord

Scheherazade
Staff member
Gee, I lost my job because of 9/11, so who do I get to sue?

All the money in the world won't bring back those who died, and it can't change what happened.
 

Joshua949

New Member
Oh, & something else i just thought of...the people who are sueing whose family or friends who were killed on the aircraft or in the buildings...first of all chose to fly AA & UA & chose to fly on boeing aircraft & chose themselves to work at the WTC so nobody should be getting sued...it's their own fault that they were killed...
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
it's their own fault that they were killed...

[/ QUOTE ]

What an insensitive thing to say.
 

pilot602

If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, & something else i just thought of...the people who are sueing whose family or friends who were killed on the aircraft or in the buildings...first of all chose to fly AA & UA & chose to fly on boeing aircraft & chose themselves to work at the WTC so nobody should be getting sued...it's their own fault that they were killed...

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh. No! It's not their fault they were killed. The victims are exactly that victims. It was a tradgedy they were murded.

What their relatives do afterwards is another issue entirely.

But the folks who perished in the attacks are in no way shape or form responsible for their own demise.

To say that is, well, stupid.
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
Didn't come across as even remotely close to sarcastic if you ask me. While I agree that its a rediculous gold-digging fest on the part of the families of some of the victims, it is NOT the fault of the victims that they were killed. My remark still stands- thats an • thing to say.
 

davetheflyer

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, & something else i just thought of...the people who are sueing whose family or friends who were killed on the aircraft or in the buildings...first of all chose to fly AA & UA & chose to fly on boeing aircraft & chose themselves to work at the WTC so nobody should be getting sued...it's their own fault that they were killed...




[/ QUOTE ]

I think I might have phrased that differently, but I see your point. The people on those flights chose to be there. They knew that there is an inherent risk in air travel. Safe is not the same as risk free.

I don't believe that it was their fault that they got killed though. It was the fault of radical Islamists who hate this country. I also place some blame on the past US foreign policy debacles that made them think that they could get away with the attack without being punished.

As to the families, I don't think that they have a case. If anyone was negligent, it was the government for not acting on the possibility of another attack following the 93 WTC bombing and numerous al Qaeda attacks. There may or may not have been specific intelligence, but that doesn't matter. The fact is that the whole country was living in a fantasy world where we were untouchable. We were sure to be rudely awakened at some point. My biggest surprise is that it took as long to happen as it did.

In today's culture, however, the rule of thumb seems to be "when in doubt, sue." And when you sue, you sue whomever has the deepest pockets and biggest insurance policies.
 

pilot602

If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that the whole country was living in a fantasy world where we were untouchable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I think the vast majority o fthe country still believes this ... especially after the "victory" in Iraq.


[ QUOTE ]
you sue whomever has the deepest pockets and biggest insurance policies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why, interestingly enough, a strong argument could be made for carrying as little insurance as possible. Strange world we live in ...
 

Center_Mid

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
In today's culture, however, the rule of thumb seems to be "when in doubt, sue." And when you sue, you sue whomever has the deepest pockets and biggest insurance policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunate, but true in many cases. I see that approach taken regularly in lawsuits against my firm's clients.

Still, no matter how absurd a lawsuit may sound, I always reserve judgment until at least part of the evidence has emerged. It's difficult to tell beforehand what kind of information will float to the surface. Maybe these people are just in it for the money, or for revenge, or to replace someone that they have lost and will never get back. On the other hand, maybe they have an inside source who passed on confidential information that made them want to sue. You never know.

My guess is that this never goes to trial. It will be dismissed on summary judgment later on, or settled.

No matter what the case may be, it's going to be ugly.
 

Joshua949

New Member
I should have worded my paragraph differently than what I did. When I said "they killed themselves" I was really meaning that they knew what the risk were & chose to continue on their path.

Also, I think that the judge in this is on CRACK. How stupid can a person be to let something like this continue on especially when these companies are already in a financial bind. The people that the plaintiffs should be sueing is the FBI & U.S. government b/c they probably knew that September 11th was coming. I mean, duh, anybody can figure that out the day that the attack happened. Probably, Sept. 11th was planned out by some high financial ananlyst who figured a way that they can make tons of money off this type of situation. It's a scenerio at least.
 

n2o2diver

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
The people that the plaintiffs should be sueing is the FBI & U.S. government

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah isn't it actually the TERRORIST fault? Sue them!

POW's from the first Gulf War are sueing to get money that we have taken from Iraq.
 

Center_Mid

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
How stupid can a person be to let something like this continue on especially when these companies are already in a financial bind. The people that the plaintiffs should be sueing is the FBI & U.S. government b/c they probably knew that September 11th was coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone screwed up, then the airlines' financial situation has nothing to do with whether the lawsuit should go forward. I'm not saying that they did screw up, I'm just saying that it's irrelevant.

As for the government, they are most likely totally immune from a lawsuit.
 

flycanuck

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I should have worded my paragraph differently than what I did. When I said "they killed themselves" I was really meaning that they knew what the risk were & chose to continue on their path.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, before 9-11 people didn't know there was risk of working in an office tower or maybe even jumping onto a commercial aircraft.....
 

Joshua949

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Ummm, before 9-11 people didn't know there was risk of working in an office tower or maybe even jumping onto a commercial aircraft.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, I know that. I mean everytime I flew somewhere even before 9/11 I would think that it's a possibility that a hijacker could hijack or blow up an airplane. I mean, anybody could've done it at the time if they wanted to. People should've realized these risk, but they didn't b/c a lot of us were living in a fantasy world where we thought nothing bad could possibly happen. I mean, we should've known something was bound to happen since George W. Bush went into office. Remember what happened w/ the first Bush...war...now the second Bush...war..
 

FLYMcDoofer

New Member
Another 9/11 law suit is one by a law firm in CHS, Ness Motley. They are suing various parties for $100 TRILLION dollars. Some of the defendants are banks, OBL, and other mid-easterners.
Its quite an interesting law suit and if you have time read about it here: http://www.charleston.net/911/
(Not sure how to post links but thats it) It's quite a drawn out lawsuit and all quite interesting.

A little side note this law firm owns a Falcon 50 and a few Citations I think. The partners are splitting b/c the big wigs get more use of the Falcon 50 and the rest of them have to use the Citations. One of the partners wanted at Cit X to get to his Colorado Ski home quickly. This company made all there money in Asbestos and Tobacco law suits.
 

Pilot Hopeful

Well-Known Member
Some thoughts stemming from this lawsuit debate…

(1) Consider an unfortunate NY citizen who, say, perhaps walked into a Dunkin Donuts across the street from the WTC on 9-11 (Note: This is a hypothetical situation). Towers fall, Dunkin Donuts destroyed, person killed. Perhaps the families should consider suing Dunkin Donuts for not preparing proper defenses for foreseeable air assaults by hijacked airliners. Perhaps they should sue Starbucks, since this person had also obtained a coffee just moments before, and if he had not had coffee, then he wouldn’t have tried to find a doughnut to complete the morning snack. It’s Starbucks’ fault for enticing the person to purchase coffee…

Honestly, what is the rationality behind targeting aviation, other than that the media has framed us as the scapegoat for this tragedy? I think most of you have hit the nail on the head: where’s the federal government’s claim to responsibility in this mess? Didn’t said terrorists pass background checks for their flight training?

(2) Why don’t we ever get chosen on the jury to defend our airline and airframe manufacturing friends. I guess our vested interest eliminates that possibility…

(3) I’ve decided where we can all find good flying jobs. Think about it: the companies with the most money own the planes. In our insurance-hyped society, the insurance companies should be investing in corporate planes soon, and we can land roles as their pilots. That is, if they would be willing to insure us…!
 

Minuteman

“Dongola”
If they weren't suing freaking Boeing, I might have a fraction of an ounce of empathy for the plaintiffs. Did the good people of Renton not build a sufficiently building-proof airplane? (or maybe a sufficiently isolated flight deck?)
 

Mr_Creepy

Well-Known Member
I've been watching this thread for a while, and I'm going to release some info I got from a CEO conference call way back. This is pretty angering to me. I'm taking it from memory and I don't guarantee I have it all right, but I think you get the gist!

1) The FBI and CIA had been warned by the Massad that suicide terrorists were planning an attack, probably using airliners as missiles.

2) Bush administration ordered the agencies to get with the airlines and work out a plan to counter act suicide hijackers.

3) The RAA and the ATA were shocked and repeatedly questioned the FAA, CIA and FBI for more details. They saw a huge cost and policy change involved in changing the strategy.

4) The Airlines refused to change the strategy, because the lawyers advised the Safety Officers that "it is not advisable to have crews fighting terrorists in a cockpit." They felt that the liability of giving pilots too much authority was too high.

5) The Airlines, the ATA and the RAA rejected the FBI, CIA and FAA directives to change the strategy for terrorism, based on the possibility of increased liability to the airlines.
 
Top