Peru Crash survivors to sue Boeing

[sinala1]

Sorry if this has already been covered, I could not find a thread regarding it...

Taken from news.com.au:

Article (http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16565326%255E1702,00.html)

A US family who survived a plane crash that killed 40 people in Peru last month is planning to sue plane maker Boeing for unspecified damages, alleging a design fault, their lawyer said today. Manuel von Ribbeck of the Nolan Law Group, representing the Vivas family of New York state, told CPN radio the suit would be filed next week in Chicago, home of the world's top plane maker. He declined to discuss how much the Vivas family was seeking in damages.

"There is a series of design and manufacturing flaws in this plane which make the company responsible, even if that did not cause the accident," Mr von Ribbeck said.

The suit will also include United Airlines, which trained the crew, he said.

Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier said she could not comment in detail until the company saw the suit, but added: "We will address any allegations they present."

No-one was immediately available to comment at United or at the Peruvian state airline TANS, which operated the Boeing 737-200 plane that crashed on August 23.

The plane had 98 passengers and crew on board when it crashed in a swamp during a freak hailstorm in Peru's northern jungle as it was coming in to land. The cause of the accident has not yet been established and an investigation is under way.

Mr Von Ribbeck said poorly designed seats prevented many passengers from escaping.

"(The seats) broke their ... hips, arms," he said.

"Emergency lights didn't work, emergency ramps didn't open and the emergency doors didn't open completely."

Six members of the Vivas family, who are of Peruvian origin, were travelling at the back of the plane and managed to escape.

Another survivor, Julio Mera, told CPN "there was no (exit) ramp or anything like that. We were practically in the mud."

Mr Von Ribbeck said his law firm had hired an accident reconstruction expert to investigate the cause of the crash. He said preliminary findings pointed to technical factors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause of the accident has not yet been established and an investigation is under way. Mr Von Ribbeck said poorly designed seats prevented many passengers from escaping. "(The seats) broke their ... hips, arms," he said.

"Emergency lights didn't work, emergency ramps didn't open and the emergency doors didn't open completely."


Whats your thoughts? Besides the fact that they are partcularly lucky to survive this type of incident, how can they even lodge the case without knowing the cause of the accident? I hate to state the obvious, but the aircraft crashed INTO A SWAMP - what did they expect - a red carpet arrival? Obviously things like emergency lighting and slides are there for assisting your unscheduled/unexpected departure from the aircraft in an emergency, but clearly there are some circumstances when this can't occur...Ungrateful :mad:******** if you ask me... :* :hmm: :mad:

[African Tech Rep]

Sound to me a bit like a scatter gun approach - lets sue everyone with money and we might get a bit.

Wonder if they know the seats weren't made by Boeing - seems they have not included the seat manufacturers yet, or for that case the FAA & Local Authority who Approved the operation - hell I'm sure theres LOTS of people they can go at - sad thing is they'll probably get an out of court settlement for "go away money"

[Bealzebub]

Well before you get yourself all worked up, there are a few things you should consider :

Be very grateful that you or a member of your family was not injured or worse in that accident. If that had been the case your viewpoint might well be very different.

It is only the fact that that these particular survivors are US citizens that will permit them to bring their suit in a US jurisdictation. Most other potential claiments will be restricted to bringing their claim in the country of origin or the country in which the accident occurred. ( see forum non conveniens)

Submitting a claim is not a guarantee ( or anything like it ) of achieving a satisfactory outcome.

Any legal claim is likely to take many years to run its due course.

Someone had a duty of care to these passengers.

If you think the claims are outrageous, you should see just how outrageous the defences are likely to be.

The loss will even if successful only be recompensed with money. That seldom puts your life back in order. The parties responsible and or liable are likely to be insured and it is the insurers who will decide the course of defense.

It will be a long road ahead for the injured parties and your heart shouldn't bleed too much for the corporations who will still be profiting on a daily basis,for each and every day that these people have to fight.

They don't sue "everyone with money" as that would constitute concurrent tortfeasure and likely weaken their case.

Investigate the history of accidents and their legal repercussions and it might surprise you. There again you could continue to become worked up by what you read in the papers I suppose.

[westhawk]

I agree that it is frustrating to see lawyers descending on victims of mishaps like vultures to carrion. Every time a major crash occurs, the same thing seems to happen. The very fact that an investigation is yet to be completed seems to encourage them to file suit quickly, naming every connected business entity with insurance, money or assets as defendants in their liability suit. The operator of the aircraft usually will look for ways to shift fault away from themselves at any cost. "Faulty design" is almost always alleged against the airframer in an air crash. The engine maker, and other OEM vendors hold their breath waiting to see if they will be named too. Even the most tenuous connection to the cause of a crash is enough to induce large expeditures for legal defense preparations. In US civil courts, the plaintiff must simply convince most of the jurors that a defendant is liable by a "preponderance of the evidence". The final official investigation findings are not required to be considered as being authoritative. Sympathy for the victims is powerful and facts are often not enough to counter this effect. Meeting all certification requirements in effect does not indemnify the defendant either. Armed with this knowledge, the plaintiff litigator attacks all "deep pockets" entities connected to the crash. Some of them may settle just to limit their loss if it looks too expensive to defend or they are not sure they can win. Some choose to fight. Sometimes they lose. In some isolated cases, there was a design fault and the designers knew or should have known. Pilot error is rarely as profitable an allegation, so expect "design flaw" to be the common refrain. Well, this is our system and I guess we will have to live with it. If you really want to look into some cases, just google "air crash lawsuits". There's enough there to keep us reading for years to come!

Best,

Westhawk

[Oshkosh George]

This defies belief!

If you crashed your 20 year old Escort into a lamp post,it's Ford's fault,right? :mad: crazy!

[barit1]

Q. What do you call 1000 lawyers drowning in the ocean?

A. A good start, but a LONG way yet to go.

[Sunfish]

"Mummy! Mummy! My girlfriend said you can get pregnant from **** sex! Is it true? Of course dear - thats where lawyers come from."

[chrisN]

I have no axe to grind on either side, but it seems to me that many responses above overlooked what seems to be the nub of the legal case being contemplated.

The basis seems to be, not that the aircraft design caused the crash, but rather that aspects of its design made escape afterwards difficult or impossible. If I read that right, it does not seem to me to be anticipating the accident investigation results, but a plain, simple state of affairs known to the survivors now.

Not being a lawyer, I have no idea whether the maker has a defence in meeting current legal requirements, and/or industry standards. I do recall substantial damages being awarded in the automotive field where no such defence was effective.

Ducking for cover . . .

Chris N.

[barit1]

Does anyone have any doubt that "deep pockets" Boeing will pay a pretty ransom to the lawyers? (Oh, and there may be a few pence left for the victims...)

[WHBM]

If the lawyers are just "acting honestly" why do they need to do huge worldwide press releases about the law suits they are filing. These things don't get into the newspapers by accident.

[Bealzebub]

"This defies belief!

If you crashed your 20 year old Escort into a lamp post,it's Ford's fault,right? crazy!"

No, but if you were a fare paying passenger in such a vehicle that was marketed as fit for the purpose, you might have a different opinion.

"Does anyone have any doubt that "deep pockets" Boeing will pay a pretty ransom to the lawyers? (Oh, and there may be a few pence left for the victims...)"

I doubt it. The manufacturer will pass the matter to its insurers, and it is they who might do as you suggest, unless they see reason or the courts compel them otherwise.

"If the lawyers are just "acting honestly" why do they need to do huge worldwide press releases about the law suits they are filing. These things don't get into the newspapers by accident."

Why do you suppose it is the plaintiffs lawyers who seek publicity ? Very often it is the corporate defendents who seek to solicit the outrage you demonstrate. It is a strange world where ordinary people feel anger towards a damaged and injured individual seeking inadequate recompense. Yet they feel sympathy and compassion to a rich, well insured, manufacturer who may have a history of allowing corporate negligence to supercede their moral responsibility on the basis of perceived cost.

At the end of the day the matter will be dropped, settled, or decided by the relevant courts. However one thing is certain and that is nobody will be satisfied. Remember these "victims" didn't board that aircraft with the purpose of "getting rich" if it crashed. Responsibility for their injuries will be decided in due course and in the proper forums for such decisions.

[FlapsOne]

The correct procedure would be to await the outcome of an investigation that may apportion blame.

Then, and only then, can law suits be filed.

The concept of just filing at everyone in sight hoping that one will pay up is just plain wrong despite the grief they may be suffering.

[RRAAMJET]

FlapsOne - absolutely my thoughts.

Bealzebub - you see the world completely differently from me, I'm afraid. This behaviour is one step closer to thievery in my opinion, and nothing to do with Boeing or UAL. Utterly disgraceful, and yes, I've lost close persons in an A/C accident before off NY, and at no time was I tempted to behave like this, despite vomitous "pushing" from legal reps.

So now Boeing have to take into account slamming into a marsh in their design, is that your logic? What utter nonsense.:yuk:

[Bealzebub]

Yes RRAm, you may be right, but I have been there and got the T-shirt. As for logic well you may need lessons I really don't know? However the escape impediments to an accident are for others to decide not you or I ? Slamming into a marsh isn't part of the design philosophy as far as I am aware ? Perhaps you know differently and are more qualified to venture judgement ? I didn't suggest a logic in this circumstance. Perhaps you interpreted my comments differently? Is "vomitous" an adjective?

To suggest such comments are utter nonsense is your opinion but belies the reality of the outcome. If you think otherwise you are welcome to see the cheque. ;)

And like others if you want to apologize for the shortcomings of big business, be my guest. After all that is what they pay good money for, to suckers that lap it up ....And by the way you can't normally can't claim damages for the loss of "close friends" !! :yuk:

[NoseGear]

"And by the way you can't normally can't claim damages for the loss of "close friends"

Cheap shot Bealzebub.:ouch:

I can't quite understand the ability to sue the maker of an aircraft that is now over 20 years old. As I see it, its up to the Peruvian CAA or whatever they are to ensure the A/C is servicable, properly maintained and the crew properly trained and current. And as has been stated, certainly not before the investigation is complete.

To now blame Boeing for design faults that had nothing to do with the crash seems a little far-fetched to me, but it's been done before. It is impossible to design for every crash scenario, someone will always think of a new way to crash an aircraft.


Nosey

[Bealzebub]

It may have been a cheap shot, but I felt it was in proportionate value to the comment that solicited it. However it doesn't matter how old the aircraft is. The passengers who travel in it are due an adequate measure of protection. Without wishing to pre-judge the outcome of this accident even if that mattered, the survivors had every expectation that that their escape should not have been impeded by the design of any aspect of the structure or interior. If it was and they suffered damage as a result then they have a case. I don't know, that is for others to decide.

Even aircraft that are 20 years old ( and that now includes such aircarft as the Boeing 757 and 767 ) are still subject to mandatory updates and so no it not unreasonable to expect that an aircraft of such an age presents itself as an acceptable additional risk to the average member of the travelling public who books a ticket on such a flight.

[barit1]

Aviators are in too big a hurry. They should fly slower and crash more gently.

:{

[RRAAMJET]

My words, Bealzebub, were "close persons", not 'friends' - as a legal expert you should read briefs more carefully. :hmm:

[Piltdown Man]

And I suppose, if the legal slime can't get any satisfaction out of Boeing (well used to beating these creeps off), United (Chapter 11 now I think - fat chance there!) they'll go for the government who initially certified the aircraft (has anybody won a negligence case against Unlcle Sam?) or TANS (not very wealthy), or the seat manufacturer (who knows, it's probably thirty years since the things were made!) or maybe even the swamp owner. Suing the God via his representatives on Earth (any wealthy church with deep pockets) might be another option. And let's not forget, our faecal legal friends won't really want to get the truth (God forbid) or even those to blame (if anyone), just anything that will stand up in court.