Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

9-11 lawsuits allowed to go ahead---ouch

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Judge: Sept. 11 Lawsuits Can Proceed Against Airlines, Others
Judge Rules Attacks Were 'Foreseeable Hazard'

POSTED: 10:34 a.m. PDT September 9, 2003

LOS ANGELES -- The hijacking and crashing of airplanes in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was the kind of "foreseeable hazard" that the airline industry should have guarded against, a judge ruled Tuesday as he permitted lawsuits to proceed.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said negligent security screening could have contributed to the attacks that resulted in the deaths of about 3,000 people in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the crash of a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania.

"While it may be true that terrorists had not before deliberately flown airplanes into buildings, the airlines reasonably could foresee that crashes causing death and destruction on the ground was a hazard that would arise should hijackers take control of a plane," he wrote in a 49-page ruling.

"The intrusion by terrorists into the cockpit, coupled with the volatility of a hijacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk that hijacked airplanes might crash, jeopardizing innocent lives on the ground as well as in the airplane," he added.

He made the findings as he let proceed lawsuits blaming airlines, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Boeing Co. for injuries and deaths in the attacks.

The judge said the Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Center property, "has not shown that it will prove its defense of governmental immunity as to negligence allegations made by WTC occupants."

The decision was based on the cases of about 70 of the injured and dead.

Messages for comment left with lawyers on both sides of the litigation were not immediately returned.

As a result of the ruling, court officials were preparing for a possible legal onslaught at the Manhattan courthouse as early as this week as some people choose lawsuits over applying to the federal victims compensation fund.

The defendants had argued that the lawsuits against them should be dismissed because they had no duty to anticipate and guard against deliberate and suicidal aircraft crashes into the towers and because any alleged negligence on their part was not the cause of the deaths and injuries.

The judge said the evidence he had seen does not support Boeing's argument that the invasion and takeover of the cockpit by the terrorists frees it from liability.

The plaintiffs said Boeing should have designed its cockpit door to prevent hijackers from invading the cockpit.

The plaintiffs had said that American and United Airlines and the Port Authority were legally responsible to protect people on the ground when the hijacked aircraft smashed into the twin towers, causing them to collapse.

The judge said the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan in earlier cases "had recognized that airlines have a duty not only to passengers on the flights they operate, but also to passengers on connecting flights, and thus may be liable when they allow terrorists to board planes."

He rejected defense arguments that the ground victims lost their lives and suffered injuries from an event that was not reasonably foreseeable because terrorists had not previously used a hijacked plane as a suicidal weapon to destroy buildings and murder thousands of people.

"In order to be considered foreseeable, the precise manner in which the harm was inflicted need not be perfectly predicted," Hellerstein wrote.

Dec. 22 is the last day families may apply to the federal victims compensation fund, created by Congress to provide financial aid to the families of those killed or injured in the attacks, and to protect the commercial aviation industry from crippling litigation.

As of late August, 2,275 claims had been filed. But roughly 1,700 families had yet to decide whether to enroll with the fund or join lawsuits against the airlines, security companies and government agencies.

The average payout so far has been about $1.5 million, with the highest award $6.8 million. The minimum payout is $250,000.

The fund has made offers averaging $1.41 million to 398 families thus far. About 1,600 families have filed papers stating an interest in applying for the fund.




This might not be great news for United, American, and Boeing. How much will it cost to defend these lawsuits? And, how can they defend themselves when the unfortunate actions the crews took allowing the hijackers to take over resulted in thousands of lost lives? I think Johnie Cochran is going to be all over this one....Ouch.

Bye Bye--General Lee:rolleyes: :confused: :( ;)
 
act of war

This was an act of war.
How can somone or any company be liable or neglegent if a group or country comits an act of war.
 
General Lee said:

"The intrusion by terrorists into the cockpit, coupled with the volatility of a hijacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk that hijacked airplanes might crash, jeopardizing innocent lives on the ground as well as in the airplane," he added.


It sounds to me like this might also get ugly for the government. The old "common strategy" played a huge role in what happened. That was handed down by the federal government. Was someone in the FAA privy to information that terrorists were learning to fly and not pass that along to airlines? Probably not, that information was most likely too compartmentalized. If there was a person in the government with knowledge of the "common strategy" and the desire of terrorists to learn to fly airliners, then the whole deal could have been thwarted, or at least greatly hindered.
 
Who declared the war? A group of people living in different countries. Do you have evidence to support your claims? Could this have been prevented? What was the hijack plan for the airlines? Did they just open the door? I know it was a terrible situation---but the judge and jury will ask whether or not it could have ben prevented, and there are a lot of angry relatives and hungry lawyers out there who want money. It is sad.

Bye Bye--General Lee::(
 
Well well well,

Am I surprised that the lawyers will once again be lining their pockets at the expense of American commerce. Only in America are "acts of God" and accidents are "foreseeable" and somebody has to pay for it!

With the firearms and food industries under attack from the legal community, which industry will be next? Will this madness ever end?
The legal profession (profession-a term I use loosely) will be the ruin of this great country.
 
I just saw Mary Schiavo (ex-NTSB I think - not sure what Government position she had...) on CNBC and her title was "Aviation Disaster Attorney" - she is now involved in the lawsuits and she was a former "cry baby" transportation regulator.

I also noted that airline stocks in general were hurt by this announcement. This can't be good for UAL and AA - the legal costs will be enormous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with the General, if it could be proven that no set emergency plans were in place or that better security COULD have prevented the disaster, then some lawyers are going to be ordering BBJs and Rolls Royces in the near future...
 
Hmmm..

I dont agree that this was an act of war..

True..If another country had done this then clearly that country would have been seen as having commited a "war like act" against the USA..

But...What about a terrorist group?...

It then... IMHO...Is an act of terror and not something that is within the norm of the rules of most countries..

The real question is weither there was information and methods available that if followed or implemented could have prevented persons from being able to act out a plan, take over not one,but four aircraft on the same day for the purposes of imtimidation,destruction of property,or death of citizens..

I say a very loud and clear yes..

Many of us for years have been concerned about "security"..
Many of us for years have laughed at the 1960s FAA training video..
How many times have we all looked at the cockpit door and thought to ourselves.."that isnt going to stop anybody or anything from getting in here"?
How many times have we all walked thru security pre 911 and looked at all of the minimum wage non english speaking screeners and thought to ourselves.."this is just great..how do you tell them from them."?

And..how many times have the goverment,airlines,and Boeing decided not to do something that was going to make air travel safer but didnt do it because" it cost too much"?

How often do we not change our security measures because the traveling public wont tolerate the delays?

Sorry guys..We did this to ourselves in alot of ways..Well..they did it to us but we made is easy for them..

As to who is to blame?I say you can stand anywhere in Washinton DC and point in any direction and pretty much be right in suggesting that they are to blame..

And we all know you cant sue the goverment and win..

So..they pick the next best thing..Anybody that has money that can be sued..

You just gotta love it..
 
I just got this from another article on Yahoo finance:



"Ultimately, however, the ruling may not have much of a financial impact on the airlines, because the government moved to limit their exposure to liability in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to Helane Becker, airline analyst at The Benchmark Company, a brokerage firm.

"It doesn't affect American or United at all. Right after Sept. 11, the government limited their liability to the amount of insurance they had, so there's no liability over and above what was insured," said Becker. In other words, the airline's insurers would foot the bill, according to Becker.

"Both companies have receivables for this already set up on their balance sheets. The insurance companies are solvent and ready to pay. The lawsuit is to determine whether they have to pay. They're fully covered. There's no financial impact on either company."


That might be the saving grace for the airlines involved. I bet Mary Schiavo wouldn't care and would sue anyways....

Bye Bye--General Lee




:cool: :rolleyes:
 
It should be against Bill Clinton and his adminstration. It is a fact that the Government of Sudan asked Clinton if he want Bin Laden dead (or at least handed over to the US). And that was from 1996 to 1998. Clinton covered his ears and walked away. Too worried about his money, sex life, and cutting the budget on National Security, he could of prevented America's worst attack on US soil.

It is not Boeings, AA, UA, or the NY Port Authority's fault.

These lawyers and group of people should focus on crushing the terror groups and support our troops instead sueing and getting money. Or they can pack it up and move to the caves Afghanistan.
 
"It should be against Bill Clinton and his adminstration..."

Every once in awhile someone cuts through the BS and rhetoric
to bring it all together at the end of the thread. Nicely done.
 
General Lee said:
"Both companies have receivables for this already set up on their balance sheets. The insurance companies are solvent and ready to pay. The lawsuit is to determine whether they have to pay. They're fully covered. There's no financial impact on either company."
General Lee reposted that, so it is not his crap, but it is crap.

I remember sitting at a meeting where no one wanted to insure Fed Ex after they bent two MD11's and a A300 in one policy year. Bottom line is, a insurance pool can not pay half a trillion dollar policy limits and sign back on for next year's business. If the insurers take a hit the US Aviation insurance market will react strongly. Many of the alien players will leave the US market all together and the US only has 30 to 40% of the worldwide capacity, at most.

No insurance, no financing, no airplanes. Other parts of the aviation insurance market that run bad loss ratios like flying clubs and schools will also dry up.

Insurance rates are already high, this will cause them to skyrocket, if the insurance will even be available. Terrorism is by definition an "Act of War." This should not be a covered loss.
 
Too bad it's not possible to sue those who are really at fault. Those who failed us and could have prevented this did not work at the Port Authority, the airlines, or Boeing... they worked at the CIA, FBI, etc. Makes me sick to read this stuff. I never would have thought this industry could stay afloat in such a large ocean of bullsh**.

Lata!
Skyward80
 
What a bunch of crap!!!!!!!!!!! !@#$%^& lawyers!
You obviously didn't lose anybody in New York 2 years ago



"It should be against Bill Clinton and his adminstration..."
You damm republicans always will find something to blame clinton for. You're so good at that you fail to see the real problems of your own party.
 
Oh my. I really hope all of this self righteous BS helps someone reading this get and pass an interview. That is the name of this message board isn't it? "Aviation Interview Board - Majors"

This thread began as an interesting tangent relating to the financial health of our industry. Now all of these political glass house dwellers are throwing stones at eash other...
Moderators ... shal we pull the plug?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top