Airline sued for turbulence

dell30rb

Final Approach
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
7,147
Location
Raleigh NC
Display Name
Ren
Home Airfield
KTTA, NC81
A Texas woman is suing Continental Airlines and three other carriers over mental trauma she says was caused by a turbulent flight, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Colleen O'Neal alleges that the October 2009 flight from College Station, Texas, to Houston -- a usually short flight that ended up taking more than two hours -- encountered extreme turbulence that caused her to fear for her life.

O'Neal experienced post-traumatic stress disorder and now fears flying, which has had a detrimental impact on her career, according to the suit filed Tuesday in Harris County district court.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/1...nental-over-turbulent-flight/?test=latestnews




PTSD from turbulence!! Give me a break. I hope the defense calls a few war veterans up to get a picture of what PTSD really means.

If she fears flying because of turbulence, well she is always going to fear flying. Getting shaken around like an etch-a-sketch is going to happen to everyone sooner or later.
 
what's sad is that the airline will probably settle and she'll get paid
 
Did she, and or her attorney read the contract in which she agreed when she bought the ticket?
 
Did she, and or her attorney read the contract in which she agreed when she bought the ticket?

Probably, but they don't care - because they are hoping that this...

what's sad is that the airline will probably settle and she'll get paid

will happen instead just to make it go away. And sadly, they are probably right.
 
How are the airlines responsible for turbulence? That's like saying I'm suing Honda because I hit a big pothole and now I'm afraid of driving.
 
Well, there is a thread here entitled "Whom shall we sue.."

It is the world we live in. Not happy? Sue!
 
Well, there is a thread here entitled "Whom shall we sue.."

It is the world we live in. Not happy? Sue!

They can sue all the want. It still won't solve the primary problem that caused the unhappiness in the first place even if they win Ft Knox.
 
what's sad is that the airline will probably settle and she'll get paid

Yep...because it will cost the airline more to defend the suit than it will for them to pay the person off...

Two words: "Loser Pays"
 
They can sue all the want. It still won't solve the primary problem that caused the unhappiness in the first place even if they win Ft Knox.

I'm not saying it's right..

I was just sued for $25,000 after my wife rear-ended a couple doing 15mph.

Couple claims all sorts of injuries. It was an even better clencher when the folks suing us proclaimed to be "Christian people!" Well, the Bible pretty much lays out a Christian shouldn't sue another Christian, but I digress..

The husband was soo injured, he claimed, he could barely get off the couch. He had no trouble cutting his grass with a push mower though.
 
I'm not saying it's right..

I was just sued for $25,000 after my wife rear-ended a couple doing 15mph.

Couple claims all sorts of injuries. It was an even better clencher when the folks suing us proclaimed to be "Christian people!" Well, the Bible pretty much lays out a Christian shouldn't sue another Christian, but I digress..

The husband was soo injured, he claimed, he could barely get off the couch. He had no trouble cutting his grass with a push mower though.
Well the Bible also says that Jesus stated "If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" (Matt. 5:40, NIV) So if they sued you for $25k to be Christian you should have given them more than $25k. Right?

Thank goodness our nation is not one of biblical laws!!!

Historically, from Greek to Roman and I am sure in many other ancient civilization. Lawsuits were used all the time! The we are a litigious people and society if not new. It goes back thousands of years.
 
LOL Scott, that is taken a bit out of context. Funny though.
 
I'm not saying this isn't bogus, but the article I read mentioned flying through severe turbulence. She may have a valid point IF the pilot KNEW about the weather conditions ahead and didn't take reasonable measures. Otherwise, it's just another absurd lawsuit.
 
I'm not saying this isn't bogus, but the article I read mentioned flying through severe turbulence. She may have a valid point IF the pilot KNEW about the weather conditions ahead and didn't take reasonable measures. Otherwise, it's just another absurd lawsuit.

Define "reasonable measures" as it would apply here.
 
Well the Bible also says that Jesus stated "If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" (Matt. 5:40, NIV) So if they sued you for $25k to be Christian you should have given them more than $25k. Right?

Thank goodness our nation is not one of biblical laws!!!

Historically, from Greek to Roman and I am sure in many other ancient civilization. Lawsuits were used all the time! The we are a litigious people and society if not new. It goes back thousands of years.

LOL Scott, that is taken a bit out of context. Funny though.

From a favorite sci-fi novel, “The Plutonium Blonde” by John Zakou
“A brief bit of history here. 2035 was a seminal year in the annals of law and order. The number of practicing lawyers in the world had been increasing at an alarming rate since the turn of the century. As a result, by 2027 fully 10 percent of the world’s population were lawyers (subsequently, 9.9998 percent of the world’s population were crooked lawyers). The enormous amount of litigation these lawyers created simply overwhelmed the world’s court system. They were suing corporations, they were suing small businesses, and they were suing executives, subcontractors, and day workers, municipalities, organizations, and homeowners. Only the homeless and indigent were spared from the litigious siege (and only because they had no money to lose).

Some lawyers even specialized in suing the dead. They were easy targets after all. You always knew where to deliver the subpoena.

By 2035, the courts were tied up in so much ridiculous litigation that there was simply no room in the system for any real legal work to be done. The United States Supreme Court, for instance, had to expand their roster of judges from 12 to 120 in order to keep up with the increased case load. Sadly, however, there was an annual suicide rate amongst the justices of 25% (when you’re in for life, there is only one way out). The legal world was quite simply a powder keg ready to explode.

The match that lit the fuse was the infamous case of Rindulli v. Rindulli, St. Louis Missouri, 2035, in which 12-year-old Elizabeth Rindulli sued her parents for making her ugly. Her suit contended that her parents, Benjamin and Juanita Rindulli, were ugly people (the term used in the suit was “beautifully challenged”) and were therefore responsible for the ugliness of their daughter. Furthermore, the suit asserted that the Indulines had prior knowledge of their ugliness before Elizabeth’s conception and their procreation showed a reckless disregard for her well-being.

Elizabeth sued for punitive damages. The exact amount has been lost in the annals of history, but it is well known that her parents were extremely wealthy, after having been awarded a sizable settlement earlier that year from a fast food company when Benjamin spilled an iced coffee, that was negligently chilled to too cold a temperature, onto his lap while going through the hover-thru. Apparently, the three-degrees-above-Kelvin mocha latte froze his genitalia in a particularly embarrassing position.

Elizabeth Rindulli won the case and the world went crazy (or maybe they finally gained their sanity). The poor girl broke down on the courthouse steps and confessed to the world that she never wanted to pursue the litigation and never even considered herself ugly until her lawyer approached her and convinced her that she was.

That’s when the revolt began. The public had had enough and set out to rid itself of the litigious epidemic. The outcry was Shakespeare’s immortal quote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” (from Henry VI) – and for most people, it was the only line of Shakespeare that they ever really understood.

The World Council stopped short of actually killing all of the lawyers. They instead formed a series of focus groups ant eventually decided that the optimal number of lawyers on a world of 15 billion people would be 7777. So through a series of aptitude tests, coin tosses, and popular votes, the 7777 lawyers deemed most worthy got to remain lawyers. The rest were disbarred and forced to get real jobs (many became game and talk show hosts). The number of lawyers allowed to practice on the plane has been kept at a nice safe level of 7777 ever since.

After the purge, by the way, Shakespeare’s popularity grew enormously in the mainstream. Unfortunately, people no longer considered him a playwright. Instead, he became sort of a prophet and a number of cults devoted to deciphering the “prophecies” hidden in Shakespeare’s plays sprung up around the world. As a result, the King of Denmark was assassinated, every Roman senator was imprisoned, and special swimming clinics were organized for all women named Ophelia. It just goes to show that appreciation of great literature can be taken too far.

It’s worth noting that some people (like me) think the number of lawyers left in the world is still too high. Case in point, some of the sleazier lawyers who didn’t make the 7777-cut, yet weren’t ready to give up their litigious lifestyle, simply went underground, slide back into the shadows, and began doing their work undercover. Thousands of these “darksharks” are now employed by corporations under the job title of “greeting card salesman.”

So sleaze is still out there. It just goes by a different name.

And incidentally, sales of greeting cards have plummeted in the past ten years.
​
 
How are the airlines responsible for turbulence? That's like saying I'm suing Honda because I hit a big pothole and now I'm afraid of driving.
But the plantiff wasn't the driver.
When you hire a company to provide the vehicle and the driver and HE hits a big pothole causing you to suffer, now what?

Was the driver properly trained? Was the vehicle "roadworthy"? Didn't the driver know there is a big pothole on that street? Ad nauseum.
 
I'm not saying this isn't bogus, but the article I read mentioned flying through severe turbulence. She may have a valid point IF the pilot KNEW about the weather conditions ahead and didn't take reasonable measures. Otherwise, it's just another absurd lawsuit.
I'm pretty sure there is at least one famous case where an airliner crashed because of flying into severe weather. Why would that be justified but not this case?
 
Well the Bible also says that Jesus stated "If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" (Matt. 5:40, NIV) So if they sued you for $25k to be Christian you should have given them more than $25k. Right?

I think a better question is whether or not Jesus meant this literally. Much like turn the other cheek, did he really expect someone who is being beaten to simply sit there and take it?

Either way, my insurance company interceded and it was a non-event. They settled for $10k, which their ambulance chaser took 45% of.

Maybe I should send them a check for the other 55%?
 
Look up her Facebook page. She has several recent pictures of her parasailing and vacationing all over the world. The PTSD must not be too bad.

Her flight was 72 miles. There's no way to go over the weather in a short trip like that. Considering that the trip lasted 2 hours I'm sure that he pilots went around the 'bad' weather and what she experienced was the best conditions to fly through on that particular day. This probably isn't her first frivilous lawsuit. Hope she loses big time.
 
I think a better question is whether or not Jesus meant this literally. Much like turn the other cheek, did he really expect someone who is being beaten to simply sit there and take it?
So you are saying he was 'winking' ;) when he said turn the other cheek, that what he really meant was to hamstring the offending bastard when you had the chance?
 
Last edited:

Really.

Perhaps "all" is too inclusive. Maybe most.

Haven't met a lawyer yet that I'd trust and I was "this far" from going to law school.

So you are saying he was 'winking' ;) when he said turn the other cheek that what he really meant was to ham strong the offending bastard when you had the chance?

Did I say that? You must be a lawyer. ;)
 
Don't be so sure of that. I'd bet they may just tell her to go pound sand.
I sincerely hope you're right. There aren't many situations in which I would root for the companies involved, but this is one of the few.

Look up her Facebook page. She has several recent pictures of her parasailing and vacationing all over the world. The PTSD must not be too bad.

Her flight was 72 miles. There's no way to go over the weather in a short trip like that. Considering that the trip lasted 2 hours I'm sure that he pilots went around the 'bad' weather and what she experienced was the best conditions to fly through on that particular day. This probably isn't her first frivilous lawsuit. Hope she loses big time.
I would bet that part of that two hours was ground delay. They probably just saw the block-out/block-in times and didn't bother to look at the actual flight times. I know from experience this company and its pilots (especially) don't make a habit of dispatching into severe anything. Certainly not anymore...

Define "reasonable measures" as it would apply here.
I'd be curious to see her definition of "severe" lines up with that of the FAA, as well. I'm betting no, in which case there wasn't anything different the pilots could have/should have done. And even if it was truly "FAA severe," I doubt it was reported as such. They definitely wouldn't have been dispatched if it was, and absent a report...not a lot they could have done.
 
Back
Top