Families of Germanwings victims sue US flight school
Posters are certainly right about the compensation culture spreading to UK. In fact its probbably worse here than in the US because US judges have decades of expereince at spotting legal scams wheras the ambulance chasers area relatively new phenomenum here in Britain.
The problem is lawyers cost more than they are really worth and therefore joe publ;ic finds it prohibitivley expensive and a risk to use a 'reputable' firm because if he loses he can lose his house and go bankrupt , the no win no fee route avoids this but ribs clients blind on fees .
the other fix is to up the fixed compensation level to say 250K per pax becaus e 100k isnt really enough these days . If 250K isnt enough for you then you probably have the resources to hire layers yourself but at the moment the low compensation level puts victims between the deep blue sea of the risk of losing and the devil in the form of the sharks
The problem is lawyers cost more than they are really worth and therefore joe publ;ic finds it prohibitivley expensive and a risk to use a 'reputable' firm because if he loses he can lose his house and go bankrupt , the no win no fee route avoids this but ribs clients blind on fees .
the other fix is to up the fixed compensation level to say 250K per pax becaus e 100k isnt really enough these days . If 250K isnt enough for you then you probably have the resources to hire layers yourself but at the moment the low compensation level puts victims between the deep blue sea of the risk of losing and the devil in the form of the sharks
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MC liability limits are subject to inflation. In my previous post I mentioned 100,000 SDR. Actually that is now 113,100.
In Euros; 141,000
In dollars 158,794
And that's without spending a penny, or cent, on lawyers.
The lawyers will take 30% of any settlement. Even if they fail to get anything over the MC limits they will get their pound of flesh.
In Euros; 141,000
In dollars 158,794
And that's without spending a penny, or cent, on lawyers.
The lawyers will take 30% of any settlement. Even if they fail to get anything over the MC limits they will get their pound of flesh.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, guys, let's wait and see what happens next. It looks to me as if Lufthansa is exposed to serious liability under US law with this one, but what do I know? I am sure that a plaintiff could do a deal with even the greediest lawyer that guaranteed a minimum payout after the lawyer's cut that exceeded $160,000, freeing the lawyer to take a swing at one very large piñata.
Yes, ATC Watcher, I know about those secrecy laws. No way to do an end-run around them, none at all? There you have a guy who was very obviously hiding an extremely dangerous condition and thereby posing an unacceptable risk to innocent people. There was nobody sending him to a gas chamber or even a camp then.
He had multiple prescriptions for medications that were illegal to use while flying, didn't he? Some guy comes into your practice to get that kind of stuff and you don't bother to ask about his background, perhaps to check if Lubitz, Andreas Günter shows up on the LBA database as an airline pilot? There you get into a different sort of German mindset, that "This was not my job," that "I build the rockets to go up in the air; where they come down is not my affair."
You know about the German government itself buying stolen bank account data from Switzerland, data that violated strict Swiss banking secrecy laws, I assume. How odd that there was no "But, but, that's illegal!" in that case. Catching German tax evaders is different from keeping 149 people away from dying screaming, so that it's okay to bend some Swiss rules chasing German tax cheats.
Yes, ATC Watcher, I know about those secrecy laws. No way to do an end-run around them, none at all? There you have a guy who was very obviously hiding an extremely dangerous condition and thereby posing an unacceptable risk to innocent people. There was nobody sending him to a gas chamber or even a camp then.
He had multiple prescriptions for medications that were illegal to use while flying, didn't he? Some guy comes into your practice to get that kind of stuff and you don't bother to ask about his background, perhaps to check if Lubitz, Andreas Günter shows up on the LBA database as an airline pilot? There you get into a different sort of German mindset, that "This was not my job," that "I build the rockets to go up in the air; where they come down is not my affair."
You know about the German government itself buying stolen bank account data from Switzerland, data that violated strict Swiss banking secrecy laws, I assume. How odd that there was no "But, but, that's illegal!" in that case. Catching German tax evaders is different from keeping 149 people away from dying screaming, so that it's okay to bend some Swiss rules chasing German tax cheats.
Last edited by chuks; 14th Apr 2016 at 20:19.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuks : Oh yes , your point about the State breaking its own laws when it suit itself is very valid, the argument of course is it was for " the good cause "( here catching tax evasion to get some money back into the treasury.)
But the lone MD will receive a different treatment. If I read the French Judiciary report correctly, Mr Lubitz went to 41 different MDs , most did not know his real employment but some did . One wrote " Pilot with G. " on its records , and one in particular knew him very well : his Psychiatrist in his home town, following him since years and with whom he corresponded by e-mail until hours prior his act.
But whether any of those MD knew he would be still flying after their consultations is another mater.
Most of theses MD had issued work stoppage prescriptions ( yellow papers) most of them were found back unused in his apartment apparently. So those MDs will argue they did " their job"
The huge issue is that following an MD advice is still a voluntary issue, and an MD informing one's employer behind the back of the patient is (still) an illegal act in Germany. That I think need to be changed for some professions , not only pilots, but defining that list will also be a challenge.
The last issue is that some illnesses , especially mental ones are immediately disqualifying you from flying duties and imply a loss of licence. In addition almost all , if not all, Pilots Loss of licence insurance still excludes mental illnesses , so hiding it as long as you can is not going to go away, and if now MDs are forced to mention it to your employer , affected people are likely not to go to see or talk to MDs anymore, making perhaps the problem worse..
That said if it had been your kids ( lot of those in that aircraft) in that A320 you would probably try anything in your power to do something about this . If a US lawyer promised you a way , who can say you would not have done the same ?
But the lone MD will receive a different treatment. If I read the French Judiciary report correctly, Mr Lubitz went to 41 different MDs , most did not know his real employment but some did . One wrote " Pilot with G. " on its records , and one in particular knew him very well : his Psychiatrist in his home town, following him since years and with whom he corresponded by e-mail until hours prior his act.
But whether any of those MD knew he would be still flying after their consultations is another mater.
Most of theses MD had issued work stoppage prescriptions ( yellow papers) most of them were found back unused in his apartment apparently. So those MDs will argue they did " their job"
The huge issue is that following an MD advice is still a voluntary issue, and an MD informing one's employer behind the back of the patient is (still) an illegal act in Germany. That I think need to be changed for some professions , not only pilots, but defining that list will also be a challenge.
The last issue is that some illnesses , especially mental ones are immediately disqualifying you from flying duties and imply a loss of licence. In addition almost all , if not all, Pilots Loss of licence insurance still excludes mental illnesses , so hiding it as long as you can is not going to go away, and if now MDs are forced to mention it to your employer , affected people are likely not to go to see or talk to MDs anymore, making perhaps the problem worse..
That said if it had been your kids ( lot of those in that aircraft) in that A320 you would probably try anything in your power to do something about this . If a US lawyer promised you a way , who can say you would not have done the same ?
Worse comes to worse, Lufty can simply fold the tent of their US training facility and the plaintiffs can divvy up whatever assets are available. If the aircraft are subject to collateral mortgages as recommended by any competent aviation lawyer, there will be very little.
Their insurers will be defending with very capable lawyers, but likely the face amount of the liability coverage is $2 million.
Best case for the plaintiffs sees $3 million less 30% / 100+ ~= $20K per Pax.
That all depends on plaintiffs' lawyers establishing that every flight training establishment must have a psychiatrist on retainer
Their insurers will be defending with very capable lawyers, but likely the face amount of the liability coverage is $2 million.
Best case for the plaintiffs sees $3 million less 30% / 100+ ~= $20K per Pax.
That all depends on plaintiffs' lawyers establishing that every flight training establishment must have a psychiatrist on retainer
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wageslave
I am not in any way defending the behaviour of the sort of lawyers who tout for business as soon as there's an accident (getting their names in the press in an attempt to attract potential clients, using agents on commission to track down more business etc) - far from it - but I wonder if you are overlooking the fact that many people killed in accidents have families who have lost their primary or only source of income?
eg If a parent's death is proved to have been caused by someone else's negligence, is it unreasonable that their children should be compensated? Or should they just lose the lifestyle they would have had, and perhaps their home, as well as their parent?
There is no one alive to sue over this. What a sick way to try to get rich.
eg If a parent's death is proved to have been caused by someone else's negligence, is it unreasonable that their children should be compensated? Or should they just lose the lifestyle they would have had, and perhaps their home, as well as their parent?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assume that Lufthansa bought a widget from a small German supplier, a widget that was made in the USA, when the damned thing exploded and damaged one of their aircraft.
Would Lufthansa then sue the small German supplier, under German law that might strictly limit liability for widget suppliers, or would they sue the big American manufacturer of the exploding widget under American law? Answers on a postcard ....
Would Lufthansa then sue the small German supplier, under German law that might strictly limit liability for widget suppliers, or would they sue the big American manufacturer of the exploding widget under American law? Answers on a postcard ....
de minimus non curat lex
One for the lawyers to answers
I suspect that the LIMIT OF LIABILITY amount was decided as reasonable for ACCIDENTS to give modest compensation, and protect the airline so that it continued to exist and keep on flying. An accident as simply defined.....
BUT this was no accident. It was a deliberate act of mass murder.
Perhaps the lawyers can say when the LIMIT OF LIABILITY is not valid, and if vicarious liability comes into play.
Enough to put the spin doctors into a flat spin as clearly his medical was now invalid (degrade in health since its issue) and therefore his licence was null and void. It follows therefore the aircraft insurance etc is seriously in jeopardy as well?
BUT this was no accident. It was a deliberate act of mass murder.
Perhaps the lawyers can say when the LIMIT OF LIABILITY is not valid, and if vicarious liability comes into play.
Enough to put the spin doctors into a flat spin as clearly his medical was now invalid (degrade in health since its issue) and therefore his licence was null and void. It follows therefore the aircraft insurance etc is seriously in jeopardy as well?
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What seems hidden in the statements of these plaintiffs is the difference in "Schmerzensgeld" and "Schadenersatz".
"Schadenersatz" is paid for loss of income, and is oriented on what you have actually lost in income from your husband, father, etc. as a dependant person from the victim.
What is being sought in this process is however "Schmerzensgeld" which is a compensation for indured psychological pain. Such compensation is usually much higher in the US than in Europe. Europe has a tradition that such psychological pain is part of life, while in the US it can be your financial jackpot.
That is why the lawyers are desperately trying to construct a link to US soil in the crash. It will be interesting to see if Lufthansa will give in to the attempt to avoid bad publicity, or if they will fight it out as the case seems ridiculous.
In Europe, the case hasn't made such a big headline, guess this is actually based on the tradition that "Schmerzensgeld" should not be your financial jackpot.
"Schadenersatz" is paid for loss of income, and is oriented on what you have actually lost in income from your husband, father, etc. as a dependant person from the victim.
What is being sought in this process is however "Schmerzensgeld" which is a compensation for indured psychological pain. Such compensation is usually much higher in the US than in Europe. Europe has a tradition that such psychological pain is part of life, while in the US it can be your financial jackpot.
That is why the lawyers are desperately trying to construct a link to US soil in the crash. It will be interesting to see if Lufthansa will give in to the attempt to avoid bad publicity, or if they will fight it out as the case seems ridiculous.
In Europe, the case hasn't made such a big headline, guess this is actually based on the tradition that "Schmerzensgeld" should not be your financial jackpot.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Soesterberg (NL)
Age: 57
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This , what precedes this post of mine, makes it for very interesting reading. I got deeply involved with the Germanwings air-crash. I could not believe it was a suicide mission. I strenuously tried to demonstrate the opposite, with all I had. I still find hard to digest the bold truth. On my end, off topic, I lost all of my licenses because I had an alcohol problem. There was a spy and I was caught. I spent time. I deserved it, I admit. But I always brought them all safe at home , passengers and crew. This would *really* be a matter of suicide if I had not. Others can, but my conscience does not forgive me (feel free to trash this thought of mine). Best, Aurora
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The link is there. It's the Lufthansa-owned and -operated flight school in Arizona, USA that produced Andreas Lubitz. There it seems pretty clear to me that Lufthansa is exposed to possible action under American tort law.
Consider the plight of VW in the USA now.
Tellingly, in the States the opening ploy was "Here, have a thousand bucks walking-around money, just for starters, while we figure out what to do next." Here in Germany there was no question of handing out that sort of money to VW customers; many are simply stuck waiting to find out how VW should fix their cars.
Now the real legal troubles, the big ones, start for VW in the States, when it's not going to be "Oh, but that was Volkswagen Group of America, not VW AG of Wolfsburg, Germany!" The problem, as it also is for Lufthansa, is not a link to US soil, but a link between a US entity, VW Group of America in one case, the Lufthansa Arizona flight school in the other, and their respective parent companies in Germany, the big companies with the deep pockets.
Consider the plight of VW in the USA now.
Tellingly, in the States the opening ploy was "Here, have a thousand bucks walking-around money, just for starters, while we figure out what to do next." Here in Germany there was no question of handing out that sort of money to VW customers; many are simply stuck waiting to find out how VW should fix their cars.
Now the real legal troubles, the big ones, start for VW in the States, when it's not going to be "Oh, but that was Volkswagen Group of America, not VW AG of Wolfsburg, Germany!" The problem, as it also is for Lufthansa, is not a link to US soil, but a link between a US entity, VW Group of America in one case, the Lufthansa Arizona flight school in the other, and their respective parent companies in Germany, the big companies with the deep pockets.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
parkfell
No.
--
There are no limits upon the amount of compensation that can be obtained for passenger injury or death.
The Montreal Convention (international air carriage) - very brief summary:
Claims for damages up to 113,100 SDRs (currently £112,000/EUR141,000 approx)
A carrier cannot exclude or limit its liability for proved loss.
This is known as “strict liability”.
Claims for damages above 113,100 SDRs
Where the loss suffered by an injured party/the family of the deceased is greater than the 'strict liability' limit, a carrier is only able to avoid paying the greater amount if it can prove that it was not negligent or otherwise at fault. ie The carrier has to prove that it is not liable.
That is the opposite of the usual legal position where, in order to obtain damages (compensation), claimants/plaintiffs have to prove that individuals/corporations they sue are liable.
I make no comment about the Germanwings accident, not least because we don't yet know the defendants' response to the claimants' allegations.
I leave jumping to conclusions upon limited information to others who wish to do so.
I suspect that the LIMIT OF LIABILITY amount was decided as reasonable for ACCIDENTS to give modest compensation, and protect the airline so that it continued to exist and keep on flying.
--
There are no limits upon the amount of compensation that can be obtained for passenger injury or death.
The Montreal Convention (international air carriage) - very brief summary:
Claims for damages up to 113,100 SDRs (currently £112,000/EUR141,000 approx)
A carrier cannot exclude or limit its liability for proved loss.
This is known as “strict liability”.
Claims for damages above 113,100 SDRs
Where the loss suffered by an injured party/the family of the deceased is greater than the 'strict liability' limit, a carrier is only able to avoid paying the greater amount if it can prove that it was not negligent or otherwise at fault. ie The carrier has to prove that it is not liable.
That is the opposite of the usual legal position where, in order to obtain damages (compensation), claimants/plaintiffs have to prove that individuals/corporations they sue are liable.
I make no comment about the Germanwings accident, not least because we don't yet know the defendants' response to the claimants' allegations.
I leave jumping to conclusions upon limited information to others who wish to do so.
I think German law specifically limits the liability of Lufthansa. So the only way the families of the victims can get at Lufthansa is through the flying school based in the USA.
I don't think the families are after the flying school as such, they want to hold Lufthansa to account, but the only way they can do this is via this "back door" method.
I don't think the families are after the flying school as such, they want to hold Lufthansa to account, but the only way they can do this is via this "back door" method.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone s talking about this being an issue for the average AME's. IMHO it is a more complicated psychological issue. In the short time an AME examines the physical side of a pilot I wonder how likely it is they 'might' spot anything untoward about the 'between the ears' area.
In early 80's pilot airline pilot selection was via a chat with the Flt Ops guys and a check on licences etc. In mid-80's the psychiatrists had been busy empire building and the HR brigade hung onto their coat tails. The interview and selection process was now out of the hands of pilots and into the hands of the theorists. If the paperwork was all in order it became common to spend many hours filling in psycho-babble mumbo jumbo questionnaires. At BA, during a DEP selection process, there was a near riot by the classroom of candidates at the perceived idiocy of many of the questions. They seemed more trying to trick/trap you than discover anything pertinent.
If I understand LH has severe psycho analytical tests for candidates; or perhaps it is a general German system. Either way, if Lubitz was passed as suitable it doesn't say much for accuracy the system. Or am I missing something?
Having said that, in UK I know many guys who tripped up at BA's HR selection hurdle and met some who passed through. It was very difficult to fathom sometimes. The good guys failed and some muppets snuck under the radar. Scary. Not dangerous, just weird.
In early 80's pilot airline pilot selection was via a chat with the Flt Ops guys and a check on licences etc. In mid-80's the psychiatrists had been busy empire building and the HR brigade hung onto their coat tails. The interview and selection process was now out of the hands of pilots and into the hands of the theorists. If the paperwork was all in order it became common to spend many hours filling in psycho-babble mumbo jumbo questionnaires. At BA, during a DEP selection process, there was a near riot by the classroom of candidates at the perceived idiocy of many of the questions. They seemed more trying to trick/trap you than discover anything pertinent.
If I understand LH has severe psycho analytical tests for candidates; or perhaps it is a general German system. Either way, if Lubitz was passed as suitable it doesn't say much for accuracy the system. Or am I missing something?
Having said that, in UK I know many guys who tripped up at BA's HR selection hurdle and met some who passed through. It was very difficult to fathom sometimes. The good guys failed and some muppets snuck under the radar. Scary. Not dangerous, just weird.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL, could this be characterized as forum shopping?
I think that the UK has seen a lot of libel suits, even over publications originating elsewhere, supposedly because of the relative ease of winning a libel case in the UK compared to many other jurisdictions, what has been called forum shopping.
Is it so that it might seem to be both easier to win and easier to obtain higher compensation by bringing a case in the USA compared to doing that in Germany, hence this somewhat indirect approach? American juries are notorious for sometimes awarding amazing sums on somewhat tenuous grounds, which is why I ask.
I think that the UK has seen a lot of libel suits, even over publications originating elsewhere, supposedly because of the relative ease of winning a libel case in the UK compared to many other jurisdictions, what has been called forum shopping.
Is it so that it might seem to be both easier to win and easier to obtain higher compensation by bringing a case in the USA compared to doing that in Germany, hence this somewhat indirect approach? American juries are notorious for sometimes awarding amazing sums on somewhat tenuous grounds, which is why I ask.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understand LH has severe psycho analytical tests for candidates; or perhaps it is a general German system. Either way, if Lubitz was passed as suitable it doesn't say much for accuracy the system. Or am I missing something?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't part of "the right personality profile" have to include "not being mentally ill"?
We had this one company shrink back at base in Europe who put all applicants for West Africa through a full battery of tests. They finally stopped using him after a series of weirdos showed up on the job, all having been checked and approved by him!
Now that I think of it, he did find that I was perfectly sane ....
We had this one company shrink back at base in Europe who put all applicants for West Africa through a full battery of tests. They finally stopped using him after a series of weirdos showed up on the job, all having been checked and approved by him!
Now that I think of it, he did find that I was perfectly sane ....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder: we are tested for competence every 6 months. Can we do our job accurately and achieved the required standards. We are tested with non-normals in the sim and normals in line checks. Who checks these HR psycho people? If they let through some whacko are they competent? Has this type of selection process ever been reviewed? Have these empire building people taken over the farm?
Dent mentioned pilots are involved in the German process. Are they direct interviewers? Sense & gut feeling can be a small but relevant part of the process.
Dent mentioned pilots are involved in the German process. Are they direct interviewers? Sense & gut feeling can be a small but relevant part of the process.