USA Today article on Hudson river landing

Steve

Steve

En-Route
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
4,178
Location
Tralfamadore
Display Name
Display name:
Fly Right
Steve said:
...
...a salesman from Charlotte who suffered a bloody nose and bruises, says he "would like to be made whole for the incident."

... says he's concerned about having trouble flying. He's flown on six planes since the accident, and each flight has gotten "progressively more difficult."

:frown2:
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Poor guy! That has to be worth a mil!
 
Figures... there's always some moron out to make a buck.
 
Kreindler & Kreindler, a New York law firm that has represented plaintiffs in crashes, says it has been contacted by several passengers on the US Airways flight.
The firm's lawyers are determining what injuries and emotional distress passengers may have suffered, and what parties might be liable under New York state law, says Noah Kushlefsky, a partner in the firm.>>>>


I wonder if they will go after the geese or Canada since they have deep pockets!!
 
Unfortunately he, and likely some others, will be suing the carrier. They really need to sue the flock of birds - or maybe even a group of NY or NJ hunters who "missed" those birds during goose season last fall - that would make as much sense. It was an ACCIDENT. Unfortunate yes, but not caused by negligence on the part of US Airways. Greedy b*st*rds...should be grateful and feel lucky to be alive.
 
At least most of the comments on the article are in favor of the pilots/airline and pointing out how big of tools these guys who want to sue are.
 
I suggest they sue the government of Canada. It was their dang birds!

That argument is just as reasonable that of Joe Blow, Joe Heartless or whatever his name is.
 
I fly a lot commercially, too. Every time it gets more difficult, thanks to the airlines. Shrug.
 
Teller1900 said:
At least most of the comments on the article are in favor of the pilots/airline and pointing out how big of tools these guys who want to sue are.
Click to expand...

The real question is if they'll get a judge/jury who will agree and throw the cases out.

One person I know (who hates planes in any form) went off on a rant to me about how this accident proved that planes were the most unsafe thing in the world. Clearly, this statement defies all logic since everybody lived. Problem is, get a jury with enough people like her (who would love to see all planes destroyed permanently), and you've got a case.

I could see it if the airlines were running parts way past their time limits, not performing required inspections/replacements/etc. That is their fault. This certainly does not seem to be any of that. Anyone who wants to sue should go crawl back into the cave they came out of and stay there where it's safe.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The real question is if they'll get a judge/jury who will agree and throw the cases out.

One person I know (who hates planes in any form) went off on a rant to me about how this accident proved that planes were the most unsafe thing in the world. Clearly, this statement defies all logic since everybody lived. Problem is, get a jury with enough people like her (who would love to see all planes destroyed permanently), and you've got a case.
....
Click to expand...

You only need a Cook County jury which figures you're lucky you just won the lottery, and wishes it was their turn.

There were aviation experts and lawyers on the cable news as the ditching unfolded. When the anchor asked, "There were almost no casualties. You think there will be lawsuits?"

"Of course! THIS IS AMERICA!" :mad3:
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
You only need a Cook County jury which figures you're lucky you just won the lottery, and wishes it was their turn.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

There were aviation experts and lawyers on the cable enws as the ditching unfolded. When the anchor asked, "There were almost no casualties. You think there will be lawsuits?"

"Of course! THIS IS AMERICA!" :mad3:
Click to expand...

They are entitled to actual damages plus a little bit for trauma or whatever. If anyone walks away with a million dollar settlement, it would go to prove that our legal system is totally out of whack with reality. Or maybe that IS the reality. :mad3:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
If anyone walks away with a million dollar settlement, it would go to prove that our legal system is totally out of whack with reality.
Click to expand...

That our legal system is totally out of whack with reality has already been established.
 
roncachamp said:
That our legal system is totally out of whack with reality has already been established.
Click to expand...

That I see constant ads from lawyers pretty much saying if your kid didn't turn out perfect from birth or you have a parent in a nursing home you can collect, proves the legal system is totally out of whack with reality.

I wonder why any doctor would stay in OB GYN practice. It's evidently assumed that they have to pay to support the kid for life, merely because "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, it will cost $50 million to support little junior. How can the parents be expected to afford that?"

Ad: "Call us. We have the experts who can find the neglect." :mad3:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
They are entitled to actual damages plus a little bit for trauma or whatever.
Click to expand...

No, Greg, they are not "entitled" to anything.

Duty, Breach, Cause, Injury - the mantra of torts. You have to have a duty to the plaintiff, which duty was breached, which breach was the proximate cause of an actual injury.

I think they will have one helluva time trying to prove any duty which was breached here.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often like to simply sue, hoping- expecting- that insurers will pay out a sum of money which is less than the cost of defense, which (of course) creates a payday for the lawyers and their clients. Many defendants will settle out in this way, sometimes with settlements made by insurance carriers despite their insured's objection (allowed by most insurance policies), giving rise to the expectation in the plaintiffs' bar of similar behavior in future cases.

Now.

Some companies have policies against nuisance / cost-of-defense settlements, on the grounds that the practice of doing so encourages more suits of similar nature, and for those who consistently adhere to this policy, the long-term effect can be excellent- no lawyers want to take these cases!

An example would be Wal-Mart, who have a very good policy of dealing with claims of injuries at their properties; if someone is injured at a Wal-Mart store, Wal-Mart will immediately arrange for treatment, will investigate and, if they believe that they were at fault, will make a fair offer of settlement. But, if the offer is turned-down or if they believe that they are simply not at fault, they will not pay off the complainant, and if suit is filed, the Plaintiffs' bar knows that the case will go to trial. As a result, unless it is a slam-dunk case of negligence (and very few are), no lawyer wants the case, because the plaintiffs' bar relies upon settling nearly every case, and trying very few. Some plaintiffs' lawyers never try cases.

---

In this case, presuming the investigation confirms what we all suspect - that US did nothing at all wrong - US Airways should not pay off one thin dime to anyone (other than the voluntary compensation they have been paying to every passenger, which I believe is a marvelous show of goodwill), and should fight any suits which might be filed vigorously; to do otherwise would always be regarded as a tacit admission of wrongdoing, and there is none!

Sometimes, stuff happens, and sometimes, it's not anyone's fault.

I genuinely believe that the airlines should maintain a list of known plaintiffs, and decline to offer air transport to them. "I'm sorry sir, but our records indicate that you sued US Airways for having an accident caused by events and circumstances entirely outside their control. As a result, we have evaluated the risk of having you on-board and decided that your business is more risk than we can afford. You can call Greyhound at 1-800-231-2222. Have a nice day."

mikea said:
That I see constant ads from lawyers pretty much saying if your kid didn't turn out perfect from birth or you have a parent in a nursing home you can collect, proves the legal system is totally out of whack with reality.

I wonder why any doctor would stay in OB GYN practice. :mad3:

...
Click to expand...

Fewer and fewer are, Mike.
 
SCCutler said:
Sometimes, stuff happens, and sometimes, it's not anyone's fault.
Click to expand...

Spike, I couldn't agree more. If you can figure out how to convince the rest of the world of this, I will give you my Aztec. I've been trying on an individual basis, and I've failed.
 
Spike, thank you for that very well written response! We all spend a lot of time bashing lawyers and the legal system in incidences like this (and lord knows it's warranted in some cases, eg: those two frat brothers suing the pilots of the COA 737), but it's good to hear from a more reputable lawyer (I'd say you're at least semi-reputable, Spike ;)) as to what the realities of this type of case are. I just hope that every lawyer contacted in this, and all subsequent cases is as righteous as you that all these absurdly wasteful claims may eventually stop.

I'll never understand why everyone feels they need to get their "pound of flesh," particularly from the person/people who quite literally saved their life. It's beyond me. But if that's the way of things, then from whom are the pilots and flight attendants supposed to exact their pound of flesh? Perhaps the passengers who demanded to go somewhere that day, requiring them to operate a flight that very nearly cost them their lives? How are they expected to function at work, flying every day, after the
 
Last edited:
I'm curious about how this will turn out. Seeing as how the event was caused by birds, the flight and cabin crew did a more-than-adequate job of getting the pax to earth safely, and the airline offered fairly generous compensation, on what possible grounds can punitive damages be awarded?

Isn't a bird strike an "act of God" in the legal sense?

And somebody is scared to fly after such an incident... how is this the airline's fault?
 
Teller1900 said:
But if that's the way of things, then from whom are the pilots and flight attendants supposed to exact their pound of flesh? Perhaps the passengers who demanded to go somewhere that day, requiring them to operate a flight that very nearly cost them their lives?
Click to expand...

Now THAT would be a lawsuit I'd like to see! The pilots and flight attendants suing passengers (specifically, those who sued the company). Just to make the point of the absurdity of it all...

Sadly, that one would get thrown out, but the passenger lawsuits wouldn't.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
You know, you are right. I probably mis stated what I meant. On second thought, I guess I don't know what I meant.

I retract my statement.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're in the firing line long enough, every "pop" is a shot aimed at you...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Now THAT would be a lawsuit I'd like to see! The pilots and flight attendants suing passengers (specifically, those who sued the company). Just to make the point of the absurdity of it all...

Sadly, that one would get thrown out, but the passenger lawsuits wouldn't.
Click to expand...

It would be fun to watch that type of suit. You're right about it getting
thrown out.
It's darned difficult for a crew to sue a passenger even when there has been physical abuse in front of witnesses. The airline will give you time off (with out pay) to testify, but won't offer any other assistance. Heck, they won't even ban the pax every time. And there is always some idiot juror who will think it's ok for a passenger to punch a FA or choke a gate agent cause they didn't get their choice of seat or got delayed for 3 hours due to a storm.
 
maddog52 said:
It would be fun to watch that type of suit. You're right about it getting
thrown out.
It's darned difficult for a crew to sue a passenger even when there has been physical abuse in front of witnesses. The airline will give you time off (with out pay) to testify, but won't offer any other assistance. Heck, they won't even ban the pax every time. And there is always some idiot juror who will think it's ok for a passenger to punch a FA or choke a gate agent cause they didn't get their choice of seat or got delayed for 3 hours due to a storm.
Click to expand...
You haven't been paying attention lately.

Now you're a terrorist and lose your kids just for arguing with the flight attendant.
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
You haven't been paying attention lately.

Now you're a terrorist and lose your kids just for arguing with the flight attendant.
Click to expand...

I saw a gate agent at LAX call the TSA, who called the police, on a woman who was unhappy about a missed flight or denied boarding (couldn't quite tell). She wasn't loud or abusive in any way I could see. Yet the TSA sent a team of 2, and the cops sent 5, and promptly had her in total tears and breakdown.
 
Another reason to fly first class...

Edit: Yes, I know it's fake.
 

Attachments

  • class warfare.JPG
    class warfare.JPG
    139.4 KB · Views: 28
mikea said:
You haven't been paying attention lately.

Now you're a terrorist and lose your kids just for arguing with the flight attendant.
Click to expand...

Read the affadavits from the other passengers. She did a heck of a lot more than "Argue with a flight attendant". Being disorderly, slapping her children, throwing a drink, and persuing a FA into the galley are all instances that might individually merit law enforcement attention, but doing all four pretty much requires it. And keep in mind that there was enough evidence to have her indicted and convicted. The FA did nothing more than what was required of her to contain the situation and report it as she was required to.
 
maddog52 said:
Read the affadavits from the other passengers. She did a heck of a lot more than "Argue with a flight attendant". Being disorderly, slapping her children, throwing a drink, and persuing a FA into the galley are all instances that might individually merit law enforcement attention, but doing all four pretty much requires it. And keep in mind that there was enough evidence to have her indicted and convicted. The FA did nothing more than what was required of her to contain the situation and report it as she was required to.
Click to expand...

K. Which of those is terrorism?
 
mikea said:
K. Which of those is terrorism?
Click to expand...
According to the Patriot Act, interfering with flight crew is. I don't necessarily agree that this rises to the level of terrorism, but apparently, a court and jury did after reviewing the facts. The airline and FA were 100% correct in reporting the incident to law enforcement. They don't decide what she gets charged with, the DA does. Bad mouthing the airline and FA cause a jury held this idiot accountable for her actions is BS!
 
If you know any Flight Attendants, you know that they have to put up with a lot, and I mean a LOT, of crap. Even the incredible glamor of their career and their stratospheric pay cannot fully compensate them for this.

Count me in as one person who is glad to see one of these dickweeds who thinks it's OK to threaten and intimidate, in the plane, held accountable.
 
Teller1900 said:
... but it's good to hear from a more reputable lawyer (I'd say you're at least semi-reputable, Spike ;)) as to what the realities of this type of case are.
Click to expand...

I think there's an advertising campaign here somewhere:

clf.jpg
 
Hey, I was... ummm... reflecting... that's it, reflecting on my next move. Adam will tell you, we charge lower hourly rates for this valuable service...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top