Is it Judges or Lawyers that were dropped on their heads?

[poadeleted1]

When is a plane more like a boat?

The crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in a quiet residential neighborhood nearly five years ago is subject to general maritime laws, a judge ruled Tuesday, allowing potentially higher damages for dozens of people who sued.

If the result was piquant, the rationale was priceless:

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet said it did not matter that the plane crashed on land in Queens, killing 260 people on the plane and five on the ground. He noted that the plane was on a 1,500-mile transoceanic flight to the Dominican Republic.

"There can be no question that, but for the development of air travel, this trip or some portion thereof would have been conducted by a waterborne vessel and that it therefore bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity,'' the judge wrote in a 78-page opinion analyzing the issue.

Besides, a piece of the aircraft, though not one containing passengers, did land in Jamaica Bay. So that would seem to settle it. (Larry Neumeister, "Plane that struck Queens neighborhood subject to maritime laws", AP/WINS, May 9) (via Taranto).

 

[wsuffa]

Admiralty laws have been applied to aviation in the past. Usually by US Customs seizing aircraft (including air carrier flights0.

 

[SCCutler]

It can also be said that, but for the absence of wings, cattle could flutter their way to the barn and avoid hoof wear.

What a silly fellow this judge be.

 

[judypilot]

Of course, if it had been an ocean liner, it wouldn't have dropped out of the sky on people's homes. Typical liberal judge ruling. Soak the "rich" to transfer wealth to the unlucky.

Judy

 

[infotango]

Nothing to do with liberal judges. Maritime law may actually preclude higher damages in some cases.

Ever since a crash in Cleveland, courts have found that maritime law applies when an airplane is operating a route on which a ship would have been necessary. In this case there is no way to get from New York to the DR except for by ship or airplane, so courts would find that an airplane would be taking the place of a ship. This is a standard test. It is a good rule because airlines always have a basic idea of how much liability they will face on a given flight. If the rule, instead dealt with where the airplane happened to crash, than it would be very hard for an airline to predict which laws would apply to any given flight. See Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland 448 F.2d 151.

In this situation, the court found that the fact that the airplane just happened to crash over solid ground, shouldn't effect the Airline's (or the Pax's) reasonable expectation that maritime law would apply to this segment. This is basically analogous to the fact that maritime law applies when a ship runs aground.

Here is the cite for the case: In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27387. I know that the 587 crash provided a ton of interesting case law on choice of law and jurisdiction. In this case the crash also fell under provisions of the Warsaw Convention.