Case over
On Monday the jury decided against the claim of the 26 Alaska
Airlines FAs who said that MD-80s have design defects that caused
them to be poisoned by toxic fumes mixing with cabin air. The jury
decided 11 to 1 in favor of Boeing and Honeywell.
The medical complaints were headaches, extreme fatigue, chronic
disorientation, memory loss, respiratory problems, balance problems,
blurred vision, goiters, tremors, ulcerated oesophagi, vomiting
blood, loss of consciousness, and partial paralysis. Several of the
plaintiffs left the airline, some because they could no longer work.
It was asserted in the trial that the FAs' central nervous systems
were damaged by exposure to organophosphates, a class of chemicals
used in hydraulic fluid and jet engine lubrication oil (not to
mention pesticides and nerve gas).
In response to the comment of Few Cloudy above, "Can't have been
too bad if it took 'em twenty years to notice it.", the timeframe
is typical in epidemiology. Physiological responses to many toxins
are not linear functions of exposure. Years can pass before any
chronic symptoms are noticable. Once symptoms present themselves the
harm is substantial. In the Australian BAe 146 inquiry there was a
good deal of expert testimony on the effects of prolonged exposure
to low concentrations of organophosphates.
Proving cause directly is not possible. All the symptoms described
by the plaintiffs can be caused by many things. It is not possible
to pinpoint a specific biochemical mechanism as a direct cause.
One juror who was interviewed said that the plaintiffs failed to
prove that their illnesses were caused by leaked hydraulic fluid
getting sucked in by the APU — or seals breaking down and leaking
lubrication oil inside the APU. "Nobody had that chain," she said.
If the chain was not there then I wonder about the legal strategy
that was employed. Twelve medical experts were called to testify
for the plaintiffs. That strikes me as questionable since medical
experts, no matter how many you trot out, cannot establish cause
and effect in specific incidences. Once one or two experts are called
on to establish that organophosphates are known to cause the
plaintiffs' complaints (which is not refutable) then you only need
one expert statistician to demonstrate that with a high degree of
likelihood the cabin fumes caused the illnesses. This being a civil
suit I think that the legal standard was a "preponderance of the
evidence" or something like that. If so, then with over 900 FAs
reporting adverse reactions of varying severity I suspect that it
would have been child's play for any competent statistician to meet
the burden.
Incidentally, the sole dissenting juror relied on common sense:
"They went in the plane healthy, and they came out sick," he said.
"It was sort of cut and dried for me." Another note: as the jury
began deliberations, the defense offered a $2.5 million settlement.
It was rejected. The FAs settled earlier with Alaskan Airlines for
$725000. Of that amount the 26 FAs received, on average, $4,298.77.
You can guess where the other $613,232 went!