Hudson survivors may Sue US Airways

[aviator's_anonymous]

What a sad world we're coming to.... they should be happy to be alive...



Taken from The Australian:
'Miracle of the Hudson' plane crash survivors may sue airline | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25109065-23349,00.html)

SOME of the 150 plane passengers whose lives were saved in the "miracle of the Hudson" last month are considering suing US Airways for the emotional distress they suffered.

The pilot received an ovation from both houses of Congress this week when President Barack Obama praised Chesley B. Sullenberger's heroism by bringing the aircraft safely down in the river on January 15. The airline, however, appears set to receive a writ.

In apparent confirmation that America remains the most litigious society in the world, Kreindler and Kreindler, a New York law firm, says it has been contacted by passengers of Flight 1549 about claiming damages for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The airline has sent the passengers a letter of apology, a $US5000 cheque to assist with "immediate needs", reimbursement for their tickets and a promise to be upgraded to first class on flights until March 10.

Tess Sosa, who escaped with her husband and two small children, told the New York Post that US Airways were seeking to "exonerate themselves as much as they can" by offering passengers "a small token".

Others, however, insist they are just grateful to be alive. One, Dave Sanderson, said the airline had "treated me like gold since the incident".

[Final 3 Greens]

they should be happy to be alive

Don't be so judgemental.

Unless you have suffered a life threatening incident, you don't really have any idea about the impact of PTSD.

Over 20 years ago, I was unfortunate enough to be caught in the middle of a nasty fire, where nearly 60 people died.

I was so close to the fire, that the flashover went within 20 metres of me, but for some reason I walked out without even a scratch.

After the event, I was fortunate enough not to suffer any PTSD and could have claimed a share of a compensation fund, but didn't, as I felt others needed it more.

But I do know that some of the other people were never the same again, had horrible flashbacks, depression and suffered recurrent nightmares and other severe impacts for years afterwards.

I imagine that some of the people on this flight would have my experience and others would be mentally scarred.

So you can score cheap points on a bulletin board, but you have not earned the right to comment until you have been there.

[strake]

F3G,

Post trauma stress is indeed a horrible, long term experience but with the greatest respect and knowing we should wait for the reports etc etc, this flight appears to have been brought down by a flock of birds.
The employees of US Airways prevented a potential disaster rather than causing it so it is not surprising that people would be angry at such a response from a passenger.
Anyway, why not sue La Guardia airport instead or indeed, the Canadian govt?
After all, it was their geese.

[Final 3 Greens]

Strake

I was commenting specifically on the words I quoted., see below.

they should be happy to be alive

[TightSlot]

I'm asking this as a genuine question... No side or spin to it.

I can understand that PTSD is a terrible thing for those affected - Is it an expensive syndrome to treat long-term? I ask, because it strikes me that there is another theoretical path to follow on compensation - one where the punitive aspect is removed: The financial sanctions against the airline insurance cover only medical expenses for PTSD.

Am I being naive here?

[Final 3 Greens]

TS

I see where you are coming from and I honestly don't know, thank God I walked away without a scratch or a nightmare and have no idea of the cost of treating PSTD.

[stop, stop, stop]

Just because you have been involved in an accident and suffer PTSD as a result doesn't give anyone the 'right' to sue for compensation.

PTSD is indeed a terrible thing to have to go through...but it is just a way for the human body and mind to 'cope' with the ordeal. A bit like 'pain' and 'shock.'

Someone could sue for a third party causing these syptoms, through negligence or intent but does that really apply in this case? I can't see any way that US Airways could have averted this accident, it is just a risk of flying.

Some people seem to be just money orientated....:hmm:

[strake]

F3G,

I understand.

In that context, I think you are very correct.

[Load Toad]

they should be happy to be alive...

Well, they paid for a safe journey and they came close to buying the farm. The fear and stress must have been unbelievable. It may have been excellent skills by the pilot and crew but if were me I'd rather not have to find out just how good the pilot is.

With regards suing US Airways given the States legal process it may simply be the due process for getting an agreement on compensation and how it is measured.

[b737800capt06]

In the United States health care is almost exclusively private and tied to your job.

If a person is involved in a serious accident in the U.S and is one of the 49 million americans not covered by private health care then your up for the bill yourself.

Post traumatic mental health is serious, and people who suffer from it need assistance from mental health professionals.

So, who pays?

In Australia, thankfully, we still have Medicare (no thanks to the Liberals trying to kill it off) which includes mental health care cover (paid for by the tax payers of Australia) - that is part of the cost is covered.

Sadly in the United States there is an element of greed in which people think that there is always someone at fault to sue and cash in big time.

In Australia, if not covered by a fund, such a the Motor Accidents Compensation Commission, you can recover for your loss via litigation - however this is not mean you can get rich quick by the old "slip & fall" at your local supermarket. Compensation is just that - putting you back in the position your were in prior the accident (and negligence must shown on the part of the defendant - duty - breach - damage).

American's do sue at the drop of the hat, some to attempt to get rich out of an event they happen to be a part of, and others because they have to in order to get the money to pay for medical care they need.

If I were on that flight, I would be sending a chq for $5,000 to the captain and first officer for saving my life.

[Gassy]

The fact they are still able to spend time on this earth and be able to see their family and friends to help them through the "trauma" should compensation enough!

If it is proved that US airways did everything possible (proper maintainance/flight ops) to make this flight/incident as safe as possible, there should be no grounds for this in my honest opinion.

It shocks me what this world is coming to.

[Bealzebub]

Some people seem to be just money orientated....:hmm:

Who ?

The people that run the business?
The people that run the insurance company that insures said business?
The People travelling with said business who are covered by that business?
The employees of the business?
The businesses who may seek reimbursement for their part in the rescue and recovery.
The component manufacturers (insurers) who the insurance companies will seek alleiviation from?
The manufacturers who will be seeking to supply a replacement product?

Or do you simply mean passengers who may have suffered trauma or loss seeking individual or group action to recover from the same insurance companies?

If I have a car accident driving to work, I am entitled to seek loss recovery from the insurance company I contract with. That is the risk business they are in, and what they charge (and I pay) large premiums to protect against.
I am sure these people are grateful to be alive, however the circumstances they found themselves in and any trauma or loss they suffered as a result is likely to be covered by the carriers insurers. To effect their third party claims may well involve a lawsuit. That is the way these things work, it doesn't mean this particular aircraft was full of ungrateful shirkers seeking to better themselves by the incredibly small likelyhood of surviving a completely unpremeditated accident.

It is worth bearing in mind that when somebody suffers a loss or trauma, nothing ever puts back that loss. The only thing that is ever offered is money. Nobody usually apologises or accepts responsibility. They ultimately might discharge their obligation with a cheque. For many victims this is far less than they really want, but will be the only thing that is ever put on the table. Unless you have been in this unfortunate position it is probably difficult to really comprehend.

[Flintstone]

It shocks me what this world is coming to.

You're shocked? You know you can sue for that, don't you?

[VS-Toga]

So you can score cheap points on a bulletin board, but you have not earned the right to comment until you have been there.

Equally, you've not earned the right to worry about their PSTD issues until you realise just what happened- the flight crew pulled off something just about unprecdented in the annals of flying history. Landing a pod-slung jetliner in a river? A miracle, IMO.

It's akin to sueing Jesus for feeding the 4000 because one of them had a nut allergy.

I am not going to comment further because this is outrageous, something caused by nature not by man, but I will say, hell, if I'd have been PF on that and I heard someone was considering legal action, I'd bop them on the nose just to give them something real to claim about.

[Abusing_the_sky]

Perhaps the said pax who wish to sue the airline regarding this incident might consider the fact that, according to the specialists' conclusions, the ditching was caused by a birdstrike.

I say sue the birds:ok:

Rgds,
ATS

PS: On a more serious note, i personally believe that it's just wrong for these people to sue US Airways. Get medical expenses covered? yes. Get a bigger slice than they can chew? NO:=

[OFBSLF]

I can understand that PTSD is a terrible thing for those affected - Is it an expensive syndrome to treat long-term?
Like all mental health treatment, treatment for PTSD can be relatively inexpensive or very expensive. It isn't like antibiotics for an infection -- take this pill once a day for a week and Bob's your uncle. The duration of the treatment varies depending upon the individual.

Sometimes the treatment works and sometimes it doesn't. Some people will recover without any treatment. Some victims of PTSD who receive significant treatment never recover and are never again able to hold down a full-time job.

Different people are, well, different.

[VS-Toga]

Sue the birds?

They're pureed now.

"The State v Pate Foie Gras"?

[NZScion]

Weird Al Yankovic - I'll Sue Ya:

"I'll sue Delta Airlines, because they sold me a ticket to New Jersey, I went there, and it sucked!"


Where do you draw the line?

[Number34]

Its not like anyone died, there was no smoke or fire or anything that could leave a lasting imprint on someone. Sure it would be stressful, for about 10mins (the flight would have been only 3 or 4 mins long) but is that enough to cause long term damage? If so, eat a bag of cement and harden up.

[racedo]

Every entitlement to sue the airline, doesn't mean they will win and ultimately it would be paid out by Insurance company with Ambulance Chasing lawyers getting a big fee.

Nobody knows the impact that PTSD will have long term on anybody.

Let a court decide if its a valid claim or let Insurance company settle which is more probable.

[PAXboy]

I am tempted to say that one reasons is that the folks see this as income during the recession - grab it whilst it's there but actually what I want to say is ...

Perhaps it is like when a parent inadvertently lets a child run into danger?

They pull the child back from the road/danger and scold them loudly. Actually, they are scolding themselves for the fright they had that they allowed the child into danger. They cannot sue the child or themselves but they can sue the airline.

If there was a cooling off period of 364 days, so that could asses what injury (mental and physical) they have and if they really ARE pleased to be alive ... perhaps fewer people would sue?

[OFBSLF]

Its not like anyone died, there was no smoke or fire or anything that could leave a lasting imprint on someone. Sure it would be stressful, for about 10mins (the flight would have been only 3 or 4 mins long) but is that enough to cause long term damage? If so, eat a bag of cement and harden up.
Right. It was nothing at all. Nothing that would keep a professional from sleeping right for over a month afterward, like Capt. Sullenberger or Doreen Welsh :ugh:

People almost died. Some will have very long lasting effects. Some won't. It isn't their fault if they do.

The fact that the event was over relatively quickly doesn't change the fact that they suffered from trauma. Some did not suffer much. Some suffered greatly.

[doubleu-anker]

This is why I detest the US in some ways and the lawyers, for taking the case on.

While they're at it, why not Sue the crew for helping to save their lives? Why not sue the port authority, or whoever that oversees the Hudson for letting the birds fly in the first place? Why not sue the engine manufactures because the engines stopped turning? Why not.....

Reminds me of the judge in the US that tried to sue the cleaner for screwing up with the cleaning and pressing of his trousers.

[mutt]

Why not sue the engine manufactures because the engines stopped turning? Why not...... they will..................

I'm guessing that they will sue:


US Air
Airbus
Engine Manufacturer
Airport authority
FBW manufacturer
Canadian geese association...
And whoever else they can find with deep pockets :)



Thats the US way :yuk:

Mutt

[Final 3 Greens]

Equally, you've not earned the right to worry about their PSTD issues until you realise just what happened- the flight crew pulled off something just about unprecdented in the annals of flying history. Landing a pod-slung jetliner in a river? A miracle, IMO.

That is irrational thinking, the OP said 'they should be happy to be alive.'

They can still suffer terrible after effects, whilst understanding that the crew did a great job under the circumstances.

Once again, I am restricting my comments to these few words from the OP and am not expressing an opinion on the rights or wrongs of any litigation.

[OFBSLF]

Once again, I am restricting my comments to these few words from the OP and am not expressing an opinion on the rights or wrongs of any litigation.
Agreed. Whether or not litigation is a proper recourse is a different matter entirely.

What disturbs me in this thread is that many people who have no understanding of PTSD make comments downplaying its impact. The fact that an incident is over in just minutes does not necessarily mean that someone won't suffer from PTSD.

People can suffer life-changing effects from PTSD.

[BladePilot]

I'm terribly vexed after reading this thread. Who can I sue?:oh:

[Evanelpus]

Ungrateful bastards

Unless you have suffered a life threatening incident, you don't really have any idea about the impact of PTSD.

Only in America, my friend. The only people who will make 'real' money from this is the lawyers. The passengers owe their lives to Sully and his crew, had it not been for their skill and courage, it would have been their relatives who were doing the suing.....no rhyme intended.

[manrow]

How right you are Evanelpus, so lets try to get right back to the original cause!

I don't know whether it was a Canada Goose or whatever that wiped out the aircraft engines, nor do I know how much sway animal rights activists enjoy in the US. But I can think of many countries where the god-dam birds are protected so lets sue the animal right groups, they can campaign with impunity currently and need to be made responsible for their unhelpful views and actions.

[OFBSLF]

Capt. Sullenberger has admitted to being greatly troubled by PTSD as a result of this incident. More than a few passengers are undoubtedly suffering from PTSD as well. Macho internet chest-thumping won't change that. Being grateful to the skillful crew won't solve their PTSD.

You can argue about whether or not the lawsuit is justified, but PTSD is no joke.

[Evanelpus]

You can argue about whether or not the lawsuit is justified, but PTSD is no joke.

I don't think anyone here has treated PTSD as a joke. What is a joke is the US 'let's sue them' attitude that rears up every time something bad happens.

[Final 3 Greens]

Evanplus

Like OFBSLF, I read your post #28 as downplaying PSTD.

If you didn't mean that, then fine.

Neither OFBSLF nor me are interested in talking about whether the US legal process is tha right approach, we are more concerned about those people who are really suffering, because of our prior experiences.

One other poster did say word to the effect that you won't carry ongoing ill effects from a 3-4 minute experience, but sadly this is plain wrong.

[OFBSLF]

I don't think anyone here has treated PTSD as a joke.
Sorry, but I disagree with you on that. For example:

Its not like anyone died, there was no smoke or fire or anything that could leave a lasting imprint on someone. Sure it would be stressful, for about 10mins (the flight would have been only 3 or 4 mins long) but is that enough to cause long term damage? If so, eat a bag of cement and harden up.

I'm terribly vexed after reading this thread. Who can I sue?

Ungrateful bastards
They may be very grateful for the skill and heroism of the flight crew. They may also be shattered by the experience.

[aviator's_anonymous]

ungrateful...

if you were out walking, and lightning struck a nearby tree, and you were traumatised, you'd sue the weather beaurea for not predicting lightning? or maybe the person who planted the tree?? what a load of crap...:mad:
the event was caused by nature and not by any human negligence or malice.. it's a part of life, and they chose to fly in the first place..
before we know it, airlines will be including disclaimers in their in flight safety breifing.....

if they are suffering from PTSD, they should take the $5000 cheque US airways have provided and spend it on councelling...

[Wedge]

Just because some of the passengers may sue does not mean that they will win.

They'd not win a case in negligence against the airline in England (on the facts as they appear at the moment), and they'd have a job doing so in America which has a reputation, unjust to some extent, for being over-litigious.

A double bird-strike, if that was the cause, would clearly fall into the category of a so called 'Act of God'. In order for the claimants to be successful, they will have to show that US Airlines breached their duty of care to the passengers in some way. On the present facts it does not look as if there is any evidence that they did; and in respect of the flight crew the evidence would suggest that Sully not only came up to the standard of care to be expected of an airline pilot, but surpassed it by some distance.

[call100]

Why are people just guessing they are suffering from PTSD?
Have they approached the Lawyers or the Lawyers them?
I suffered PTSD many years ago in the forces (It wasn't called that then...). All the money in the world would not have cured me any quicker or made the flashbacks disappear. Only time will do that.
I suppose on the subject of suing, it will depend on your nature wether you are for it or against. Personally I could not bring myself to sue for an accident that was the fault no one but some Geese.:sad:

[OFBSLF]

As usual, lots of folks are unable to separate two orthogonal issues:

1) that they are suffering PTSD and that it may be very severe for some,

versus

2) whether or not the legal action is justified.

Final 3 Greens and I have both been supporting 1), but have not taken a side, pro or con, with 2). Yet everyone criticizes us over 2).

[EBC-S9]

How can they sue the airline? It was not pilot error, nor did they have any powers to stop the accident from happening. Blame the RSPB for the birds having got in the way in the first place if people are going to be so critical.

Yes, they should be happy to be alive.

[Final 3 Greens]

Yes, they should be happy to be alive.

Again, you are confusing the two matters.

If you have severe PTSD, you may cognitively realise that you are lucky to be alive, but suffer from severe depression and literally never be the same again. 'Happy' will not be a meaningful word in your universe.

call 100 (who has my sympathy and best wishes) says that his PTSD took a long time to fade; for some it never does and for others (like me) it never really happens ..... I went back to work on the Monday after an incident on the Sunday and I am happy to be alive, never had a flasback, nightmare etc... I'm not a hardened heroic type, just didn't get affected.

If you take a practical view, then if the person cannot live a normal life for some time, e.g. they cannot hold down a job or travel if their job requires it, then how do they deal with this? It's not just the cost of the treatment.

Putting that to one side, I am not expressing an opinion on the rights or wrongs of any legal action, just empathising for those who are affected by their experiences.

I just read this article, it is in a totally different context, but is tough stuff.

Iraq hero goes on warpath - Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/iraq-hero-goes-on-warpath-1634227.html)

[boredcounter]

We, as you will all know, have had an incident in Europe too, where an aircraft 'crashed' onto the runway post birdstrike. Has that lead to legal action? Just interested to know if FR/CIA et all with possible accountability are in the same position of possible litigation.

[Di_Vosh]

I wish some of you would read about PTSD before you make your posts!

The simplest google search will give you this:

Posttraumatic stress disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder)

I'll go out on a limb and say that ALL these pax and crew are Grateful to be alive. But that has NOTHING to do with any PTSD that may arise from this event.

To one individual, PTSD can be debilitating to the point where they can't leave their own home. Another individual who experienced the same event may have no effects at all.

People who say things like:

if they are suffering from PTSD, they should take the $5000 cheque US airways have provided and spend it on councelling...

have NO IDEA what they're talking about. Individuals MAY require YEARS of counselling and/or other psychiatric help. They MAY find that they cannot perform their job (you know, what brings in the money to buy food and all that). How is $5000.00 going to cover that?

Or this:
(the flight would have been only 3 or 4 mins long) but is that enough to cause long term damage?

From personal experience, I can guarantee that when you are thinking "OMG! I AM GOING TO DIE" every second is an eternity! Who are you to say that there wont be any long term damage? :ouch:

Lastly, spare a thought for the Flight crew and CC who may be reading this! Some of the comments on this thread don't help!

DIVOSH! :*

[doubleu-anker]

I think most of us are aware of the effects of PTSD. However US air did not set out with the intention the passengers and crew should suffer from this disorder. They didn't want the aircraft to crash anymore than the crew and passengers on that flight. So why lash out at the airline and try and sue them? I cant see any intent there whatsoever.

Now if you can sue OBL for 911 then I would have some sought of respect for the US legal system. But they wont because he is not a soft target, is he.

This litigation nonsense is so far out of control in the US, Doctors on flights that plan to be in US airspace from abroad, are reluctant to put "Dr" on their ticket in case they are called upon to deal with a medical emergency. If they screw up a medical emergency, on board in US airspace, they do not look forward to possible/probable litigation from the person whose life possibly, the doctor is trying to save. You can thank the fear of litigation for that. Putting lives at risk and not trying to save them, thanks to the good 'ol U S of A. God help America!

Is this an acceptable way for loving human beings to behave?

[Pjlot]

With all due respect to the people who feel the need to sue, PTSD can be difficult to treat. But Like anything, recover depends on the person and their willingness to help themselves overcome the incident causing the reaction. Some people probably will need ongoing treatment but others will use PTSD as a way of "NOT BEING ABLE TO WORK EVER AGAIN".


A member of my family suffered from PTSD and I understand it’s not easy. BUT, those who have a get on with it attitude are usually the ones who recover after some counselling and those who seek continued counselling sometimes just want to relive the experience over and over and over again thus preventing themselves from moving on!

Just a note - here in Ireland suing is nearly as bad as the states. Only this week there was a case in the High Court where Lithuanian guy tried suing a midwife for €38,000! Reason: She asked him to turn his camcorder off and stop filming the birth of his baby for a few minutes. Reason she asked him to turn it off: she needed to perform emergency suction on the new born's trachea because the infant was not breathing. Thankfully the infant survived and the case thrown out of court! (The law firm should have had better sense than to take such a case. He was even landed with having to pay all the legal costs for the Midwife and the cost of the court sitting and rightly so)

4 years ago a nurse on her way to work stopped at road side accident in which a man had basically died at the scene. She performed CPR on him. She revived him and after hospital treatment he survived. He went on to sue the nurse who administered CPR which save his life on the road side. Reason: he accused her of cracking one his ribs. The lady only brought him back to life. An ungrateful ass**le like him didn't deserve her kindness or efforts!

Some people are just money grabbers and get rich quick opportunists! Anyone who wants to try making a quick dollar out of this should be ashamed of themselves and what goes around comes around. Faith may not be so kind to them the next time they are looking death in the face! Karma!

I do believe that people should be helped towards their medical expenses if they can't afford it but at the end of the day it was the birds fault and insurance companies & airlines employ some pretty smart legal EAGLES themselves ! ! ! ACT OF GOD - don't know of any Insurance Company or Airline to cover that ! ! !

On the other hand if this was a ACT OF MAN as in something to do with engineering or human error then that is a different flock of birds ! ! !

[Bealzebub]

I think some people get too worked up and emotional over this issue. The airline has insurance coverage, and that coverage is in part to protect the company from third party claims. If individuals or groups are going to make third party claims, they would need to initiate a suit. It really is as simple as that.

Certainly not all the individuals will necessarily have a claim. The airline may mitigate or even settle those claims as it sees fit. It may be a condition of their insurance coverage that they are restricted in the negotiation or settlement it would otherwise choose to make. Any claims that are made may be successful, partially succesful, fail, be dismissed or abandoned. There is no surity in any of this, and even those claimants that do pursue their claims might spend many years doing so before the claim is eventually decided one way or the other.

This is simply a process. You might not like it, but it is. It is probably a very long process and that is why the initiation and intention to file takes place as early as possible.

If you will excuse the pun, the "flock of birds" angle is a bit of a "red herring." It may be nobodies fault when a Deer runs out in front of a car, or a tree falls on a bus. However if those risks are covered by an insurance policy, then any damage is likely covered. You can be reasonably sure the airline will recover the value of the hull, and probably the business losses associated from the loss of the hull. Likewise third parties can exercise their claims against the policy as well, although that would normally require a claim against the carrier who pass it on to their insurer. This is rather like a passenger in your car suing you for any damage they might suffer as result of a crash. In reality it all gets passed to the insurer by you. However they cannot claim directly against your policy (unless there are special circumstances) because they have no contract with the insurance company, only you the driver has that, and hence that is the process. It doesn't sound very friendly or nice, but that is how the process has to take place.

Too many "Daily Mail" indignants getting worked up over this issue in my opinion.

[rottenray]

Divosh writes

I'll go out on a limb and say that ALL these pax and crew are Grateful to be alive. But that has NOTHING to do with any PTSD that may arise from this event.Any PTSD which may arise from this event has NOTHING to do with USAir's conduct, policies, or actions.

Except perhaps the fact there was an extremely experienced, skilled flight crew which made the best choice possible, landing with enough of the aircraft left so that cabin crew could conduct a safe evacuation.

Suing USAir for this incident makes about as much sense as suing Canada because Canadian Geese were involved in the birdstrike.

If they're grateful to be alive, then they shouldn't consider suing the operation which saved their butts in a situation which could have presented itself to any aircraft departing that day.

... and ...

To one individual, PTSD can be debilitating to the point where they can't leave their own home. Another individual who experienced the same event may have no effects at all.Regardless of the impact of the stress on any individual, at some point personal ethics should play a role.

USAir didn't do anything to encourage the geese to fly into the path of the aircraft. In fact, the pilot flying took extremely good care of the people in the seats behind him, and made sound decisions - which is the primary reason there are survivors who are alive and well enough to consider suing.

That alone should be enough to see any lawsuits quickly dismissed, and I personally hope the attorneys responsible for filing run into a judge who has the nads to slap a contempt charge on them for filing an utterly frivolous case.

Simply being somewhere when something bad happens doesn't give one the moral right to sue whomever was the last to "handle" them.

This smells like something instigated by the sort of law firms who advertise on late-night television.

[Final 3 Greens]

Too many "Daily Mail" indignants getting worked up over this issue in my opinion.

Well said Beazebub.

Rottenray

Did you read Beazelbub's post before authoring your irrational rant?

[cwatters]

> Individuals MAY require YEARS of counselling and/or other psychiatric help.
> They MAY find that they cannot perform their job (you know, what brings
> in the money to buy food and all that). How is $5000.00 going to cover
> that?

It won't but why should the airline pay for that rather than the individuals own insurance? From this distance it's quite hard to see where the Airline might be liable. Presumably they would have to show that the incident wasn't handled correctly and that that contributed.

[Bealzebub]

The airline won't, that is the point. It is the airlines insurers that will either settle or defend any third party claim for damages. If the passenger had been travelling in your car and a Canada Goose flew through the windshield and caused them injury, they would be within their rights to sue you for recovery. Your insurance company would then be notified of the claim and should take over the matter. If the claim is successful by way of negotiation or judgement the insurance company will pay it (subject to excess). Similarly if the Goose causes $2000 worth of damage to your car, and you are comprehensively insured, you will also make a direct claim yourself, that in all likelyhood will be settled.

[Final 3 Greens]

Just to add that insurers sometimes try to recover their outlay.

So, you may make a claim on your own insurance and the your insurer decides to sue to try to recover.

A condition of accepting your payout is that you will allow the insurance company to sue on your behalf.

So although the 'passengers' may be issuing writs, it could be the insurance companies who are doing it.

However, this is purely speculation and that is why I have refrained from commenting on the rights and wrongs of any actions, I don't know enough to have a sensible opinion and neither does any one else on this thread.

[doubleu-anker]

Correct. However the majority on this thread do seem to have an idea what is right and what is wrong.

We all seem to be forgetting one very important point here. The law is not about justice. If you think it is, then think again.

[Di_Vosh]

When I posted yesterday, I was NOT making any comments on the ethics of any possible litigation.

I posted because I was concerned with some of the callous and ignorant remarks made in relation to PTSD. (so to posters like Rottenray, please don't quote me out of context).

Comments such as:

The fact they are still able to spend time on this earth and be able to see their family and friends to help them through the "trauma" should compensation enough!

(the flight would have been only 3 or 4 mins long) but is that enough to cause long term damage? If so, eat a bag of cement and harden up.

Ungrateful bastards

are pretty p1ss poor, and highlight the ignorance and lack of compassion of the poster, IMHO.


Cwatters, I might have not expressed myself well with my How is $5000.00 going to cover that?

It was not meant to mean that I supported any litigation. It was in response to a post by aviators_anonymous who (I thought) implied that PTSD was simple, quick and cheap to treat.

DIVOSH!

[autobrake3]

Greed really is a nasty thing.

[Final 3 Greens]

Greed really is a nasty thing

Agreed.

So it ignorance.

So is prejudice.

[Bealzebub]

Greed really is a nasty thing.

Yes it is. Yet in the mid 1980's and for the next 23 years, it almost came to symbolize corporate big business and those that survived off its earnings. In 1986 at the University of California, Ivan Boesky (later convicted of insider trading) delivered a speech where in part he stated: "Greed is all right, by the way. I want you to know that. I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself." Propogated by Carl Icahn and many others that for many, became the rallying cry for capitalism.

In recent times the fruits of this mantra have started to rot on the vine. Look at the global financial system, including most of the worlds largest financial institutions. Look at the worlds largest Insurance company AIG and many others. Were they not guilty of the most obscene greed?

It is hard to equate how potentially damaged survivors of an accident and their possible future claims can be enveloped in the same gift wrap as some of these instutions, by those who would seek to portray the latter as innocent victims of circumstance. The other way around surely ?

[Mr Quite Happy]

@ Bealzebub

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3259/zom5wgruwuos3iqzfz7byqcnx2.jpg

[gavpav]

Why would anyone start an airline business if it was also responsible to ensure birds filed flight plans and had TCAS turned on? This is nothing but opportunistic greed. Lets sue everyone and then wonder why insurance premiums go up as well as airline tickets.
Has any of these selfish lawyers ever wondered if it was an act of god or just an accident that nobody wanted to happen?
Unfortunately these disgusting lawsuits happen outside of the USA now too.
Probably same Di*khead lawyers who invented sueing parents!

Stop the world- I want to get off!!!:eek:

[Number34]

Yeah yeah yeah, I know what it is, I know how it effects people but in this context its just a piss poor excuse used by greedy buggers.

[PAXboy]

For those that have not seen PTSD at first or second hand, then reactions can be as stereotyped as people who say that a person with depression should 'just pull themselves together'. If the state of a person's mind is altered, then they will make decisions that seem strange to some people. I agree that the lawyers are on the gravy train but they too are just trying to make a living and doing so in a way which their society approves of.

My father was in a bad aircraft crash when he was 21. He got pulled out of the buring wreckage and had PTSD all of his life. The problem being that the aircraft was an RAF Mosquito that crashed on take off in 1945 when an engine caught fire - and you don't want to be in a wooden aircraft fully fuelled and gunned up for night fighter operations with an engine fire. So there was no counselling and he just toughed it out. It wasn't nice and these days there would be some sort of compensation.

He died at the age of 78 and had the usual nightmare just the week before he died. That was 55.75 years of PTSD.

For those who have not seen PTSD or Depression or Schizophrenia at first hand, one analogy is this:- a woman is enjoying a normal pregnancy but then has a spontaneous miscarriage and the child dies. No one is to blame, nothing could be done to save the child - it's jut life. Is she angry? Depressed? PTSD? Would she like to sue someone if she could? For these pax, they CAN sue someone - so let them do so. A large part of the price of their ticket for that flight - was made up of insurance.

[gavpav]

I understand and have read all of the threads here but still do not see why a airline should pay up for something that they did not cause while being in an industry that spends millions of dollars every year on the problems of birds around airports.
A passenger can purchase travel insurance. Just like car insurance or home insurance. Is is far from perfect and all policies are different.
An airline doesnt make much money on a $200 airfare and should not be expected to pay out milllions for each passenger for accidents and incidents that are completely out of its control. If a carrier is neglegent, that is different, but not a accident.
Millions of people every day suffer PTSD for different reasons and cope without sueing organisations who have no control over these accidents.
Look at wars, car accidents or terrorism.
The people at fault here are the mitigation lawyers who get rich from these court actions.
I am very sorry for all of the passengers and crew in this accident who may be suffering PTSD, but sueing US air is not the honest answer.
I cannot understand this SUE mentality. :yuk:
There is a big travel insurance industry out there.

[Final 3 Greens]

gavpav

I feel a Rainboe moment coming on.

Your comment is brainless.

The airlines take out insurance policies to cover against this sort of claim, so they don't pay. This insurance is a cost of doing business and is reflected in the ticketprice.

If you travel in my car and I skid through no fault of my driving, your lawyer will sue me and my insurance company will deal with the claim. It will either be settled out of court or by court judgment.

What part of this do you have trouble understanding?

Making a false claim is fraud (and the insurance companies are aware of the risk), but as explained by other posters before, lawsuits are normal practice to claim on insurance policies.

Doh :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[gavpav]

Final 3, -try not to be insulting- I am just stating an opinion just like you but I can do it without being personal.

So we should just sue airlines when aircraft get diverted or cancelled in bad weather? Is that also what travel insurance is for? When is it just a case of bad luck? Act of nature? Everything has risks and unfortunately we now have a world where people have to blame and sue for just about anything. You seem to condone a blame culture and this is what I am talking about. Airlines insure for all sorts of reasons but there is a limit for what they are responsible for and what the insurance companies will pay.
Ever wonder why insurance premiums across the board have gone up so much, or the cost of doing business cost so much?
I am responsible for my own actions and have house, car, travel and life insurance and pay a premium so if the worst happens, I have some help in most cases. I couldnt sleep at night blaming and sueing a company that really was not responsible for the birds flight paths.
Have a really nice day!:rolleyes:

[TightSlot]

Move along please... Nothing to see here... Move along please

[Octopussy2]

Final 3

you're slightly missing the point (which gavpav actually got). Yes the airline will have insurance to cover it against all sorts of losses. However, in order to make a successful claim against the airline (though the claim will indeed be settled by its insurers), the passengers (or their insurance companies) would have to prove negligence.

For that you need to prove that the airline has a duty of care to its passengers (yes) and that it was in breach of that duty (er, it would appear not, on what we know about the incident at the moment).

No breach of duty = no claim.

It is, of course, not impossible that the airline would decide to make a payment in any event, either for public relations reasons, or because it (doubtless in conjunction with its insurance company) assesses that the costs of defending the claims (even if the defence is successful) plus litigation risk (there is no such thing as a 100% certain outcome in any legal dispute) means that it would rather pay an amount of compensation than go to court.

[Final 3 Greens]

Octopussy

Please will you cite an authorative reference for your assertion that a passenger needs to prove ngeligence to claim on a carrier's insurance.

Please also make sure that your reference is relating to US law.

Thank you.

[Bealzebub]

@ MR Quite Happy

Thank you for your photograph of the forest at Habsheim. I am not sure how this correlates, however rather like most insurance companies, it does seem to have branches everywhere! Nevertheless it did involve the same aircraft type albeit in very different cirumstances. In that case the insurance companies satisfied the claims I believe.

Insurance is to protect you against the unexpected, whether it is caused by negligence or just plain bad luck. It is a commercial gamble and that is how the industry undertakes its business. The passengers in a commercial air transport are also usually covered against any claims they may have that arise whilst in the care of the carrier.

If it causes you personal grief that such claims may arise and impact adversely on the insurance company, you should save your hand wringing for the claims those insurance companies are now making on national governments (search AIG and others,) they are not so coy when it comes to making their own claims on the public purse.

In this case the carrier will have paid premiums that reflected the commercial risk associated with potential third party claims for damages.

[Final 3 Greens]

Octopussy

As you didn't answer the first question, let me ask you another.

An airliner is cruising in conditions that are not forecast to be turbulent and the belt sign is off.

There is an unexpected CAT encounter.

A passenger queueing for the lav is injured.

Will the airline insurance policy cover this injury, when the airline was not negligent?

[Octopussy2]

oooooh it's been a long time since I've been set homework :p

Listen, if what you're saying is that the airline has insurance that covers it for passenger claims irrespective of fault, then that's fine and, in principle, the passengers can claim against it. However, there is no logical reason why that should be a contentious issue, requiring them to sue.

I note that Bealzebub states that commencing an action is simply the way it's done, but that doesn't make a great deal of sense - if the cover is there for the benefit of third parties, irrespective of fault, then why not just notify the claim to the insurance company? (to clarify, I'm not saying Bealzebub is wrong, just that it's an odd way of going about it).

If it's an application for some kind of declaration that you are a third party who is entitled to claim (as one of the passengers affected) then that might possibly make sense (though it would be a rather bureaucratic way of going about things). This is, however, a long way from what was being reported and what is being talked about on this thread, which suggested that the contemplated action by the passengers was an action against the airline arising out of an alleged breach of its duty of care.

[Final 3 Greens]

Octopussy

I have made only two points on this thread

1 - PTSD can be very serious for the sufferer

2 - claims against the airline will be settled by insurers

Anything else, I'm not much interested in discussing, although you will see that I agreed that greed is a bad thing.

[Pugilistic Animus]

People are sissies,... back in the old days when you crashed, if you weren't killed,...you got another plane and went right back up!!!
I think a lot of this 'PTSD' was created by Greedy lawyers and opportunistic pax

were they not offered compensation? counseling? etc...it's just greed

furthermore, they are to blame for much of their own trauma, because some idiot sank the plane with his ground brained ideas and put them all in the drink


weak minded Gingerbread cookies :yuk:

[TightSlot]

Oh Dear! You need to ask the Doctor to up the dosage Pugilistic Animus - it's clearly not getting you all the way through the day.

I think that this thread has run its' course now - Please PM me if you disagree and have something to add that hasn't already been covered.