SQ006 Wrongful Death Suit against Singapore Airlines Starts

[Picard]

May 03, 2004 09:19 PM US Eastern Timezone

Wrongful Death Suit against Singapore Airlines Starts Tuesday

--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
WHAT: The first wrongful death case against Singapore Airlines for
the crash of its Flight SQ006 will start on Tuesday, May 4,
2004 at 9:30 AM in Los Angeles Federal Court, 312 North
Spring Street, Room 7, Los Angeles, CA before the Hon.
William D. Keller. Opening statements will begin at
approximately 11:00 AM on Tuesday, and the trial is expected
to last one week. Plaintiffs are represented by Brian J.
Panish and Kevin Boyle with the Santa Monica, CA law firm
of Greene, Broillet, Panish & Wheeler, LLP. The Estates of
Ching Ying Wu and Richard Tzuen Ren Wu vs. Singapore
Airlines Incorporated, Case No. CV-01-1752 WDK.

WHO: Plaintiffs Sidney and Christina Wu filed suit on February
23, 2001 against Singapore Airlines for the wrongful deaths
of their parents, Richard Tzuen Ren Wu and Ching Ying Wu,
who were killed when Singapore Airlines Flight SQ006 crashed
before take-off on October 31, 2000 at Chiang Kai Shek
International Airport in Taipei, Taiwan. Plaintiffs seek
general damages for Defendants' alleged negligence.

The Wus, both executives with Ameripec, Inc., had been in
the region on a business trip and were returning to their
home in Irvine, CA. The Boeing 747-400 jumbo jet was headed
to Los Angeles International Airport with 159 passengers and
20 crew members on October 31, 2000 when the pilot attempted
to take off on a closed runway and slammed into some
construction equipment, causing the plane to burst into
flames. The Wus were two of the 83 people killed and 64
injured in the accident.

"Singapore Airlines has done everything in its power to
avoid appearing before an American tribunal," said Brian
Panish, "and to face those passengers it has injured or who
have lost a family member. The airline has fought us tooth
and nail throughout the course of this litigation, from
refusing to turn over the cockpit voice recorder tape to
flouting a court order allowing the Plaintiffs to question
the pilots of Flight SQ006. Singapore Airlines can no
longer avoid facing an American jury. It is now time for
the airline to be held accountable for its actions."

Panish noted that: "A March 2003 Time magazine article
reported that Singapore Airlines is expanding its business
in the United States, and that the airline spent $9.4
million on high-end wine that it is letting age in its wine
cellar. Despite this, Singapore Airlines still refuses to
fairly compensate Americans Sidney and Christina Wu, whose
parents were killed by the airline's negligence. Our legal
team is one-hundred percent prepared to see that justice is
served for our clients."

Mr. Panish and Mr. Boyle represent the Wus and the
plaintiffs in 14 other wrongful death or negligence cases
against Singapore Airlines as they pertain to the crash of
Flight SQ006. In September 2003, the attorneys went to
trial in Los Angeles Federal Court in Linke vs. Singapore
Airlines, which was the first case to be tried in the United
States against Singapore Airlines. At Singapore Airlines'
behest, the parties entered into a confidential settlement
for a substantial sum of money after one day of trial.

WHEN: Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 9:30 AM

WHERE: Los Angeles Federal Court
Room 7, The Hon. William D. Keller
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

[highcirrus]

So all this SQ cost cutting, including major pilot salary cuts, is to pay for the upcoming substantial court imposed settlements? Obviously we don’t want the shareholders to be out of pocket when the employees can foot the bill!

[BYOD]

All about $$$$. Anyone know how much? Glady, where are you?

[mini]

Where does the Warsaw Convention come into this? I thought that limited liability in the event of an accident?

Any experts out there?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: mini

Where does the Warsaw Convention come into this? I thought that limited liability in the event of an accident?

I believe if negligence, deception or coverup can be proven the liability is unlimited as is for pain and suffering.

:E :E

[Gladiator]

I have no idea how much. If it is confidential then it is sealed.

My bet the next one will end quick with the same confidential outcome.

[Picard]

Posted on Thu, May. 06, 2004


LA jury deliberates in suit over Singapore Airlines' Taipei crash

TIM MOLLOY

Associated Press


LOS ANGELES - A jury began deliberating Thursday how much Singapore Airlines should pay the survivors of two of the 83 people killed when a plane crashed on a Taiwan runway in October 2000.

The airline did not dispute its liability for the deaths of Richard and Ching Ying Wu, an Orange County couple who had planned to fly from Taipei, Taiwan, to Los Angeles after a business trip. The jet went down the wrong runway and crashed into construction equipment.

California's wrongful death law allows families to seek damages for the loss of 11 parental attributes defined by state law, including comfort, love, and care. Family attorney Kevin Boyle asked the jury to award the family $2 million for each element.

Boyle said one of the greatest losses for the Wu children is not having their parents at their weddings. Their son, Sidney Wu, 31, left two seats empty to honor his parents at his ceremony and reception. Their daughter, Christina Wu, 27, is engaged.

"She doesn't have her mother to go pick out the dress with her. Her father can't give her away," Boyle said. "And most importantly, they're not going to be there."

The case began Tuesday, a day of special importance to the family because it was the birthday of both Sidney Wu and his mother. Jurors deliberated for about four hours Thursday, and were to continue Friday.

Immigrants from Taiwan, Richard and Ching Ying Wu rose to leading positions in a bottling company. When the plane crashed, they were on a business trip where they had secured $35 million from investors, Boyle said.

The airline's lawyers didn't present any witnesses during the trial. Attorney Frank Silane told jurors the case was not about loss or blame, only about how much the family should receive.

"This was a fine family," he said in his opening statement Tuesday. "It was a close family and a good family."

Silane declined comment Thursday.

The company announced in 2002 that two of the pilots on the flight had been fired and a third was grounded.

Taiwanese investigators concluded the crash was likely caused by pilot errors exacerbated by bad weather from an approaching typhoon. They said the pilots could have prevented the accident if they had used airport navigation charts or requested taxi assistance.

[mooney59]

Speedbrake,

When you send your children off to school by, lets say a bus,
what would be your reaction if the bus driver,ignoring all obvious signage,including little notes on his lapboard, drives up a closed road-that dosent's even look like a road- into a ditch with dire consequences for all the occupents in the bus?

Sure accidents we can factor in, but how about accidents due to negligence?

[BlueEagle]

"ignoring all obvious signage"

As far as I understand it this is a large part of the problem, there was no obvious signage, it was lit up as a runway.

[johnpilot]

The Warsaw convention does not apply to liability caps for tickets bought in the United States as the US does not have a cap on the liability money as in Europe and the rest of the world. That in effect means that if an airplane has an accident in the US or going to or from the US pax onboard have different rights.
This is maybe unfair in some peoples eyes but it exists.
The money these people are seeking depends on their relatives income.
Let me put it to you in a different way. I cannot value someones life as it is not fair to do so. But we can value someones future earnings based on todays earnings. You cannot expect that a plastic surgeon will earn the same amount of money as a pilot. It is only fair for those left behind to be able to continue their standard of living and not have to deal with the loss of someone and the loss of earnings aswell
JP:O

[mooney59]

Definition Notams:


[ICAO]- A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service, procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations. Notam Advisories for terrain avoidance will be issued by clearance delivery prior to departure and by Center on the descent for arrival

[knackeredII]

With you 100% on this one Speedbrake. So by their logic, can I sue my parents if they don't show up at my wedding?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: johnpilot

I cannot value someones life as it is not fair to do so.

You may not be able to do it but the US Department of transportation (Parent of the FAA) does it all the time. The figure most used is 2.5 Million dollars. This figure is used when the FAA does a cost benefit analysis when determining if a change will be made on a fleet of aircraft.

:E :E

[Picard]

LA jury awards $15 million to children who lost parents in crash

By ALEX VEIGA
AP Business Writer

LOS ANGELES --
Jurors on Friday awarded $15 million to the children of a couple who perished aboard a Singapore Airlines jetliner that crashed on a Taiwan runway in October 2000.

The judgment is the first jury verdict in a civil case brought against the airline in connection with the crash, which killed 83 people, said attorney Brian Panish, who represented the two children of Richard and Ching Ying Wu.

The Orange County couple had planned to fly from Taipei, Taiwan, to Los Angeles after a business trip. The jet went down the wrong runway and crashed into construction equipment. The airline did not dispute its liability for the couple's deaths.

The jury deliberated for a day and a half before returning its unanimous verdict. The panel awarded $3.75 million for the loss of each parent, or a total of $7.5 million to each of the children, son Sidney Wu, 31, and daughter Christina Wu, 27.

In a statement, Sidney Wu thanked the jury on his and his sister's behalf, saying the verdict "gives us some closure in the four-year-long nightmare that we've endured because Singapore Airlines didn't do the honorable thing by our family."

He added: "Our hearts go out to all the other crash victims that Singapore Airlines continues to stonewall, and we hope that our case will give them the fortitude to endure, knowing that they can have faith in the American jury system."

California's wrongful death law allows families to seek damages for the loss of 11 parental attributes defined by state law, including comfort, love and care. Attorneys for the Wu children asked the jury to award the family $2 million for each element.

"It was a great family relationship, a devastating loss to these children," Panish said Friday. "Their parents were great people and it was a devastating loss. The jurors recognized that and provided fair and just compensation for their loss."

The case began Tuesday, a day of special importance to the family because it was the birthday of both Sidney Wu and his mother. Jurors deliberated for about four hours Thursday, and continued until late afternoon Friday.

Immigrants from Taiwan, Richard and Ching Ying Wu rose to leading positions in a bottling company. When the plane crashed, they were on a business trip where they had secured $35 million from investors, said attorney Kevin Boyle, who also represented the Wu children.

The airline's lawyers didn't present any witnesses during the trial. Attorney Frank Silane told jurors the case was not about loss or blame, only about how much the family should receive.

"This was a fine family," he said in his opening statement Tuesday. "It was a close family and a good family."

A telephone message for Silane was not immediately returned.

Taiwanese investigators concluded the crash was likely caused by pilot errors exacerbated by bad weather from an approaching typhoon. They said the pilots could have prevented the accident if they had used airport navigation charts or requested taxi assistance.

The company announced in 2002 that two of the pilots on the flight had been fired and a third was grounded.

Panish, who represents 14 other families of those who died in the crash, said the airline settled before going to trial in a separate case. He declined to say what the amount of that settlement was or whether it was more or less than the amount awarded to the Wu children.

"We intend to try every case until Singapore Airlines gets the message," Panish said.




May 07, 2004 06:45 PM US Eastern Timezone

Jury Awards $15 Million to Wu Family in Singapore Airlines Crash of Flight SQ006 Wrongful Death Case

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 7, 2004--A seven-member Los Angeles federal court jury unanimously awarded Sidney, age 32, and Christina, age 27, Wu $15 million today in their wrongful death lawsuit against Singapore Airlines. Their parents, Richard Tzuen Ren Wu and Ching Ying Wu, were killed when Singapore Airlines Flight SQ006 crashed before take-off on October 31, 2000, at Chiang Kai Shek International Airport in Taipei, Taiwan.


The Hon. William D. Keller presided over the trial, which began on May 4, 2004, and lasted two-and-a-half days, with the case going to the jury on Thursday, May 6, 2004. It was the first such case to be tried in the United States against Singapore Airlines, which had admitted to liability prior to the start of the trial. The Wus were represented by Brian J. Panish and Kevin Boyle with the Santa Monica, Calif., law firm of Greene, Broillet, Panish & Wheeler, LLP (The Estates of Ching Ying Wu and Richard Tzuen Ren Wu vs. Singapore Airlines Incorporated, Case No. CV-01-1752 WDK).

"After doing everything in its power to elude the American legal system," said Brian J. Panish, "Singapore Airlines has at last been held accountable by a federal court jury for the wrongful deaths of Richard and Ching Ying Wu. The verdict is but a small comfort to the Wu children, who, in losing their parents, lost the heart and soul of their family.

"On a positive note," added Panish, "today's verdict sends a loud and clear message to Singapore Airlines that the U.S. court system does have teeth. We hope that the airline will now seriously reconsider its approach to resolving the remaining lawsuits that are pending against it in this country."

"My sister Christina and I would like to thank the jury for its verdict," said Sidney Wu, "as it gives us some closure in the four-year-long nightmare that we've endured because Singapore Airlines didn't do the honorable thing by our family. Our hearts go out to all the other crash victims that Singapore Airlines continues to stonewall, and we hope that our case will give them the fortitude to endure, knowing that they can have faith in the American jury system."

[Gladiator]

Speedbrake

This subject has been beaten to death many times. Nevertheless I am going to kick the dead horse one more time.

Many at SIA for years had said, "They have it coming". Why such a statement?

SIA had and continues to let greed run the show. SQ006 was the result of the profit culture of the god forsaken Island.

My employer allows crewmembers to make their own decision when it comes to GO or NO GO for any reason without having to explain why in the office. SIA crewmembers work and live in fear.

I can go on and on, lack of crew rest, improperly licensed and trained crewmember in the pilot-in-command station. Does it ring a bell?

Now there is the question of crew moral. Another very dangerous area of discussion. So please don't keep calling it an accident. It was an accident waiting to happen.

Captain xxx of carrier xxx looked out of the window of his hotel room on the same evening of the SQ006 event in TPE. He decided it was a NO GO. He went back to bed. He is now retired and is enjoying his grandchildren.

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

I'm surprised the Pilots haven't been asked to pay the legal fees.....YET AGAIN.

[Picard]

Title : US#dollar;15m awarded in SQ006 suit will not set precedent: lawyers
By : Hasnita A Majid, Channel NewsAsia
Date : 08 May 2004 2154 hrs (GMT)

SINGAPORE : The amount of US$15 million a California jury has awarded to the Wu family, who lost both their parents in the SQ006 crash over three years ago, is not a precedent-setting decision, lawyers told Channel NewsAsia.


They were asked if the court's decision would influence the outcome of other cases where families of crash victims are also suing Singapore Airlines.


They say the amount awarded will depend on many factors and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.


In this case, SIA has a few options, such as appealing against the judgement or the quantum awarded.


"The accord of damage is very much so dependent upon the particular circumstances of the deceased as well. Pain and suffering that individuals go through, the number of years that people can be productive, of course the actual capability of the person to earn a particular sum of money or advance to a particular level -- all these are various considerations that will come into effect when considering a quantum for damages," said lawyer Mervyn Tan.


"This does not mean that each and every individual who follows in the footsteps of this precedent will be accorded the same sum. I think we must understand it in an international context. We intend to say this is a large amount because in Singapore it's quite unheard of, but obviously it's not a sum not unheard of in the US," he added. - CNA

Singapore Air insured against Taiwan crash damages
Reuters, 05.09.04, 2:45 AM ET


SINGAPORE, May 9 (Reuters) - Singapore Airlines Ltd (SIA) <SIAL.SI> said on Sunday it was insured against the US$15 million in damages it has been asked by a Los Angeles court to pay the children of a couple killed in a Taipei crash in 2000.

Sidney and Christina Wu won the judgement on Friday after a three-day trial in a wrongful death lawsuit over Singapore Airlines\' Flight SQ006, which crashed at Chiang Kai Shek International Airport on October 31, 2000.

"It is all covered by insurance," spokesman Rick Clements told Reuters. Asked whether SAI would appeal, Clements said it was up to the insurers and their legal representatives.

Flight SQ006 crashed when attempting to take off on a closed runway during a storm. It rammed into construction equipment, killing 83 of the 179 people on board. The accident was blamed on pilot error, exacerbated by heavy rain and windy conditions.

Though the crash occurred in Taiwan, the Wus were able to sue SIA in the United States because the flight was bound for Los Angeles. Their parents, Richard and Cindy Ying Wu, were among those killed in the crash.

Singapore Airline\'s main insurer is Singapore Aviation and General Insurance Company Pte Ltd, which insures its risk with other reinsurers worldwide, an SIA spokeswoman said.

Singapore\'s Sunday Times said it was unclear how the Los Angeles court verdict would affect suits filed in Singapore.

A lawyer, instructed by four U.S. law firms representing SQ006 victims to file 21 civil suits against SIA in the Singapore High Court, said six cases had been settled out of court. Of the remaining 15, four had been filed by Singaporeans.

Singapore Airlines is 57 percent owned by state investment agency Temasek Holdings.

[Farrell]

Who cleared the aircraft for takeoff on a closed runway?
Did the pilot give himself clearance?
Did the tower see the impending problem?
Were warnings to stop the takeoff roll ignored?

Just questions....

[ElectroVlasic]

As others have mentioned, this has been discussed ad nauseum.

Speedbird: Note SIA did not call any witnesses, basically admitting its liability. As noted, the trial wasn't about what happened, it was about how much money was going to change hands.

[Casper]

They managed to get away with it by controlling the investigation report in the case of MI 185. Let them pay now!