Originally Posted by
OldnGrounded
Liability questions in civil litigation are considered on the basis of what actually happens, no on what might have happened. If you sue a driver who injured you in a collision in a crosswalk/zebra crossing, the driver can't argue that your lawsuit is ridiculous because you could have been injured by debris from a deorbiting satellite -- or anything else.
There's nothing at all "ridiculous" about the basis of the SWA pilots' suit, although we can't know, now, whether the specific details of the case will permit it to eventually go to trial.
How can they prove they were harmed? How do they know what would have happen using your legal logic. Nothing is guaranteed. They are basing they harm on what might have happened to them in a positive circumstance. The same could be made in a negative circumstance.
it is a frivolous lawsuit by a pilot group that has limboed under most every Reg and rule. What about all the FAA fines levied against southwest for their improper maintenance procedures. It is a short cut company and mentality. I hope they get the case thrown out.