BA038 PAX to Sue? [Archive]

Donkey497

4th Feb 2008, 20:37

I'm not sure the Toronto and Heathrow cases are exactly comparable.

As I recall, the A340 incident happened after at least one go around in poor weather probably causing a fair amount of anxiety within the cabin then managed to cause a fair few injuries amongst the SLF as well as destroying their belongings.

In Heathrow, it is apparent from most of the statements that few of the passengers were aware of anything amiss until the plane actually dropped short of the runway. Secondly, those unfortunate few who were injured suffered relatively minor injuries and finally the damage to the cargo area of the 777 at Heathrow appears from all of the media coverage to date to be relatively minor, therefore although the passengers are likely to have suffered the inconvenience of not getting their luggage straight away, they should still be able to reclaim it at some point, probably substantially undamaged.

Frankly, it's disappointing to see that litigation is being considered, as it brings us that much closer to the litigous culture that exists almost unchecked in North America. I would have hoped that the passengers would have been sufficiently realistic to realise how lucky they were to walk away and appreciate any efforts the Company would have been able to make towards recompense and restitution.

I'm not sure just how U.K. law stands on this versus how it would be viewed in the U.S. I suspect that the defendants might have a harder time had this happened on the other side of the pond, say IAH, EWR, ORD, or MCO.........

CargoOne

4th Feb 2008, 20:38

Dysag

Well I think that after final report is published it would be possible for lawyers to put a blame either on BA or Boeing or GE or any combination of them. Crew and maintenance issues (if any) goes to BA, the rest goes to manufacturers. And considering previous cases it is most likely that ALL of them will be blamed doesn't matter who's fault it was.

p.s. and to a furter extend if manufacturers are involved, FAA and EASA will likely to be sued as well.

p.p.s. just sitting next to my lawyer here :)

grebllaw123d

4th Feb 2008, 20:46

Hi Tommy'C,

Of course it is your place - all contributions are very welcome:):D:ok:

You don't have to be an old "b......" in order to contribute:)

Keep up the good work!

BRGDS

Mark in CA

4th Feb 2008, 20:50

Must be the passengers from California :)

Impress to inflate

4th Feb 2008, 21:04

In the good old days in Britain, the pax would all have been give a hot cuppa and a fancy biscuit from a mobile tea truck and every one would have been happy then someone invented lawyers !!

Check Airman

4th Feb 2008, 21:08

:mad: ungrateful bastards the lot of them. Instead of giving thanks for their lives, they want to sue. Sometimes I wonder if some people are worth saving:confused:

Tommy' C

4th Feb 2008, 21:22

Well said Airman. The sorry thing is, most of these guys realize what a job BA did...but the power of finance prevails :rolleyes:

Sven Sixtoo

4th Feb 2008, 21:28

Cargo One

I'll be truly amazed if anyone manages to sue GE on this one. Perhaps their sales team could be had up for incompetence?

CargoOne

4th Feb 2008, 21:34

There should be a certain line... Passenger did paid for the SAFE trip from A to B. They never paid anything to the pilots. They paid to airline. Did the trip ended safely? NO. Who they should blame and seek compensation? Airline. Very easy. If it is B or GE problem, they will be made involved at a later stage. Before that it is quite reasonable to chase airline.

Just imagine you went into a decent restaurant and expected to have and pay for a good food. And then it ended up with a serios stomach issues. And a feedback to your complain is "but you are still alive, why you not appreciating this???". Would you tolerate that?

Sallyann1234

4th Feb 2008, 21:35

Sally Moore, a personal injury lawyer, said she had been approached by passengers seeking advice about their legal options.

She said: "We have been asked to advise a couple of people on what their legal remedies might be. They are considering their options. We are not acting for them yet."

Am I being too cynical to rewrite this? ...

"Our firm would like to get some business out of the accident, but since we haven't been engaged by anyone yet we have got on to the Press Association to get our name advertised to possible clients."

Gufair

4th Feb 2008, 21:43

My son has just said to me

Daddy when I grow up I want to be a Personal Injury Lawyer!

God I'm proud

Mr cynical:);)

jamier

4th Feb 2008, 21:44

People have been mentioning GE is that General Electric as i thought Rolls Royce engines were on the 777?

Regards,

Jamie R

GXER

4th Feb 2008, 21:51

ungrateful bastards the lot of them. Instead of giving thanks for their lives, they want to sue. Sometimes I wonder if some people are worth saving:confused:

Bizarre argument - pax should be grateful (to whom - BA?) that they were involved in an accident in which they nearly, but not quite, lost their lives.

champair79

4th Feb 2008, 21:56

Yeah come on guys get your facts right! The BA 777 had RR Engines not GE!

120.4

4th Feb 2008, 21:57

I am both gob smacked and disgusted.

Negligence has not been established. Nobody forced them onto the aircraft and anybody who willingly gets onto an aircraft must surely accept that there is a risk of death or serious injury. There is such a thing as bad luck. Any litigation is pure opportunism, taking advantage of the misfortune of others, be it BA, Boeing, RR or who ever. And the effect will be... To put up ticket prices for everybody else so that the cost can be covered. Utter selfishness.

Something unfortunate happens, they are lucky enough to walk away wth thier lives and they see it as an opportunity to squeeze money out of somebody. "Money, that tainted thing..."

.4

Gufair

4th Feb 2008, 22:00

120.4

Well said!!

parabellum

4th Feb 2008, 22:00

If this follows the standard pattern then BA, Boeing and Rolls Royce will be named in any action, possibly the airport authority as well. Boeing were named in the Teneriffe, (Pan Am/KLM), accident despite it being obvious they had no part in causing it and immediately put $5million in the kitty as that was cheaper than defending themselves, (Boeing's Product Liability Insurance cover cost them $50 million p.a. in 1983 so you can guess what it costs today).

Remember that in the USA any award is based on the 'deepest pockets' theory so if found liable for say 20% of the blame you could finish up paying 80% of the award if you are deemed the richest defendant, well that is how it used to be, may have changed?

eoincarey

4th Feb 2008, 22:26

GXER
You're looking at it the wrong way. Consider this. Every time a pax buys a ticket for a flight, he/she is asking said company to perform an unnatural activities (defying gravity!) and deliver him to a destination. This is something that would not be possible if not for the company's proficiency in performing said 'unnatural activity'. Why then, should these passengers have any right to complain when, on the one in a god knows how many million chance, something goes disastrously wrong, and the company is STILL able to deliver them safely to their destination.

The pax is paying for the company's safety, training, and skill in doing a task of which he knows nothing and trusts blindly in their competence. He should not complain when that competence is proved irrefutably sound.

In short: cracking job by the crew - people should not seek to undo what was in fact a remarkable piece of skill which reflected brilliantly not only on the crew but on the company, BA, which trained them.

ETC

srobarts

4th Feb 2008, 22:33

120.4
I am a regular SLF, when I get on a plane I expect that the Manufacturer/Airline/Engine Manufacturer/Airport Personnel will have done everything in their power to ensure a safe flight.
You are correct that negligence has not been established. But then no cause has been established only preliminary findings. So you cannot condemn passengers simply for exploring the possibilities if negligence was proved.
Sadly in this litigeous world there will always be one or more passangers who decide to resort to law.
Once that happens are others going to be magnanimous enough to say "I know you are paying passengers £x but I don't think it is right so you don't need to pay me"?
I would be very surprised.
One person who obviously deserves some compensation is the passenger who I gather had a multiple leg fracture from the undercarriage leg penetrating the cabin.

sandbank

4th Feb 2008, 22:33

OK - I admit I wasn't hurt in the crash

And - alright I wasn't actually on the plane,

And, fair enough, I was 200 miles from Heathrow that particular day - but I sure as hell was traumatised by seeing the stills and the tv news coverage and reading all the pages of details and posts here on PPRUNE.

All in all it was a very upsetting experience. Next day there was more tv coverage - which brought everything back to me and made me re-live the original horrific events. My lawyer says only a realistic compensation settlement is going to help me sleep easily again and it'll all be on a "no win-no fee" basis.

thinkingpilot

4th Feb 2008, 23:25

1. i am a pilot with a major airline
2.it looks like the crew did a fabulous job saving pax.
that said...... pax pay to be SAFELY flown A to B. they were not . they are entitled to compensation from someone . who? let the aaib determine cause.lets not act like we do pax a favour by letting them fly. its a contract and they are the reason we all have a job.

liquid sunshine

4th Feb 2008, 23:26

I can't remember the finer detail but is the airline's liability not limited under the Warsaw convention as long as the airline had taken all necessary measures to avoid the incident? If this is the case there may be some disappointed claimants out there!

///mav

5th Feb 2008, 02:53

That's appalling, from what I've read here and elsewhere it sounds like the airport staff/BA staff on the ground could have handled certain things like how people would get home better, but other than that..wow, these people should be incredibly grateful!!

anartificialhorizon

5th Feb 2008, 05:41

Extract from their website.

Crash landing passengers may seek compensation
4th February 2008
Sally Moore, head of the accidents and disasters department at law firm Leigh Day & Co says that some passengers who were evacuated from a British Airways plane that crash-landed at Heathrow airport in January 2008 may be able to make a personal injury claim.

Next to this article on their website is a picture of a British Airways tailfin!!

Vultures .

CargoOne

5th Feb 2008, 08:24

Sorry my mistake, it is indeed RR, not GE. Somehow in my head 777 is always associated with GE.

120.4

5th Feb 2008, 09:06

Well in that case....

Let's all sue the BBC etc for the stress caused by watching it on the TV.

What a load of utter selfishness.

He who takes up the sword will die by it. Anybody wo goes down this road cannot complain if they are themselves sued should they make a mistake during their life. Seeking advantage from another's misfortune when you have walked away without a scratch is wicked. These days people seem to look for any opportunity to exact a price. That is evil.

.4

IainB

5th Feb 2008, 09:23

Ambulance chasers par excellence
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

MrSoft

5th Feb 2008, 09:29

It seems to me the topic of litigation is being driven by the lawyers, not the passengers, so some lawyer-bashing is in order.

In the good old days in Britain, the pax would all have been give a hot cuppa and a fancy biscuit from a mobile tea truck and every one would have been happy

Yes and no. Personally I love the stiff upper lip, and deploy it through choice. But the good old days? Hmm, when we fed nerve gas to volunteers at Porton Down and hushed it up, or when children killed themselves every day in unsafe playgrounds and we did nothing about it? For sure, Britain needed a wake up call with our 'stiff upper lip'. We should remember this when we go off venting about "PC" nonsense.

Everything suggests to me that the flight deck did a great job, but as far as I can see, negligence has not yet been excluded. Maybe we should be a bit more circumspect here until the truth finally emerges. I agree broadly speaking that in daily life some discomfort is to be taken on the chin, but I don't believe surviving a plane crash is necessarily trivial.

groundhand

5th Feb 2008, 09:40

Thinking pilot

1. i am a pilot with a major airline
2.it looks like the crew did a fabulous job saving pax.
that said...... pax pay to be SAFELY flown A to B. they were not . they are entitled to compensation from someone . who? let the aaib determine cause.lets not act like we do pax a favour by letting them fly. its a contract and they are the reason we all have a job.

Why are they ENTITLED to compensation?

Am I ENTITLED to compensation when stuck on a motorway because someone had had an accident?
Am I ENTITLED to compensation when I trip over a paving stone that has been moved by illegal parking on the pavement?

The compensation culture due almost totally to the 'no win, no fee' vultures costs EVERY UK citizen thousands of pounds in insurance, tax, council tax etc.

Yes, if there is proven negligence (something that was known, forseen and deliberately ignored)

But there are such things as 'accidents' and every passenger knowingly took a risk by getting onto that flight. Just because something went wrong (and until the AAIB reports I keep an open mind) does not ENTITLE the passengers to compensation.

GH

tightslop

5th Feb 2008, 11:35

technically they did get from A to B safely. The aircraft was still intact . They all walked away from the crash! I can guarantee that if that plane hit the runway instead of the grass they would all have been killed as the plane would have exploded on impact!

These people have no gratitude for their lives. Do you think that the crew will be able to sue????? NO is the answer. They have to carry on with their everyday lives just like that pax on the plane.

Get a grip people:ugh::ugh:

What is money going to solve??? How is that going to make things better???? You have no injuries that have screwed up your lives, so why do you need the money???

JFW

5th Feb 2008, 12:03

Some of the passengers were injured - one had multiple leg fractures. That person will be unable to work for several months and may lose their job as a result - he/she will certainly lose a great deal of wages. They undoubtedly have mortgage/rent to pay and if they are unable to work may lose their home. They are likely to have problems with the injuries for many years to come, possibly for life. These are significant losses and I don't see any reason why they should not seek compensation for them. I have no doubt that given the choice of the money or not having had the accident they would choose not to have had the accident.

I don't buy the argument that because they chose to travel by air they must accept the consequences. We all travel by car - does this arguement mean that we should accept the negligant driving of another driver even if he causes us an accident because we accepted the risk?

Personally I don't think the 'no-win, no-fee' culture has anything to do with it. If the lawyer thinks that they are at risk of not being paid for taking on a risky case, then chances are they won't take the case on. Ever seen a lawyer who doesn't mind whether they get paid or not?

Llademos

5th Feb 2008, 12:20

It's not often I defend Lawyers but ...

If you read everything that is on the leigh Day and Co website about this, it seems fairly clear to me that this (http://www.leighday.co.uk/doc.asp?cat=916&doc=1270) clearly puts considerable doubt on the ability of the passengers to sue. If the claim is for less than £80k the Montreal Convention applies and it's on a 'no fault required' basis, but anything over that requires someone to be at fault. Given that all bar one of the passengers had minor injuries, and, again as stated by Sally Moore at the link above, it is unlikely that psychological injuries are covered by the Convention and it is also unlikely that the extent of the psychological trauma, especially when BA is mitigating by offering long term support, will bring the compensation estimate above the £80k. This seems to be fair and realistic advice to me.

Ll

CargoOne

5th Feb 2008, 12:39

technically they did get from A to B safely.

what AAIB then doing with that? I never heard technically safe flights attracting any interest from AAIB side.

The aircraft was still intact

Yep, not counting MLG went through, not counting engines full of mud and missing some covers etc...

They all walked away from the crash!

First they had to jump, including children, old people and probably some disabled people as well. Then walk. And it was someone else fault, because BA pax are normally expecting to walk away through the gate or stairs, and certainly not expecting to experience dangerous G on touchdown.

groundhand

5th Feb 2008, 13:48

Cargo one, to quote you..

First they had to jump, including children, old people and probably some disabled people as well. Then walk. And it was someone else fault, because BA pax are normally expecting to walk away through the gate or stairs, and certainly not expecting to experience dangerous G on touchdown.

Agreed, passengers would expect to disembark via an airbridge or set of steps. But the fact that they did not disembark in the expected manner should not automatically entitle them to financial reward

I'm also not sure how you make the statement that 'it was someone else(s) fault' - what do you base that on?

Dysag

5th Feb 2008, 15:53

I believe insurers still use the term "Act of God" when referring to a situation that man could not have prevented.

Presumably every other accident is recognised to have human contributory factors somewhere along the line: design, certification, operation, maintenance etc. Fault if you want to call it fault.

It's the job of the AAIB to identify them. They will be found.

eoincarey

5th Feb 2008, 16:39

Bealzebub

5th Feb 2008, 18:11

Nobody forced them onto the aircraft and anybody who willingly gets onto an aircraft must surely accept that there is a risk of death or serious injury. There is such a thing as bad luck. Any litigation is pure opportunism, taking advantage of the misfortune of others, be it BA, Boeing, RR or who ever. And the effect will be... To put up ticket prices for everybody else so that the cost can be covered. Utter selfishness.

Really ! You think that anybody who gets on to an aircraft must surely accept that there is a risk of death or serious injury. Well perhaps that there is an extremely miniscule risk. After all they are not made to sign a waiver accepting such a risk. The insurers set their premiums at a level that reflects the extremely unlikely occurence of such an event. So why on Earth should any normal person overtly concern themselves with such a thing. The whole industry promotes, advertises and operates on the fact that any carrier will safely and reliably transport you from A to B. Nearly all of the participants in the industry are commercial companies. This is true from the manufacturers through the airline operators, and on to the insurance companies, who all seek to make a profit by promoting the fact that the product is such a low risk commodity.

So when (rarely) an accident or serious incident happens where damage occurs, why shouldn't there be a claim ? The industry participants have already priced the risk into the product. The manufacturers and the airlines are insured against the risk, and inevitably any claims will fall to the insurers. Unless you have experienced the trauma of such an event and the subsequent problems that may be associated with it, what grounds do you have to proffer disparaging criticism ?

If its any consolation to the embittered, court awards in the UK for actual visible injuries are ludicrously low, let alone psychological ones ! Large awards when they (rarely) do occur are often in compensation for long term loss of future earnings. Even those are usually as a result of many years of wearilly fighting against insurance companies, who know that in the UK they have nothing to lose by pursuing a case to court and possibly everything to gain by default. In the United States the common use of juries and the application of large punitive damage awards, tends to focus the attention of insurance companies as a case approaches trial. In this respect perhaps the US system is not as absurd as it is sometimes portrayed.

For those that are inclined to suffer sleepless nights at the prospect of large US corporations being sued, they can console themselves with the fact that most of the passengers in this case would be non US citizens. The American companies will almost certainly agree to comply with the Uk jurisdiction (they would be mad not to), and as such the rules of forums nons conveniens would prevent them being successfully sued in their own country.

None of these passengers invited, expected or deserved to be in this situation, and if they they have suffered any damage as a result of it, then they have the absolute right to seek compensation. Money may be a poor recompense for injury or loss, but since nothing will ever put right having to experience and possibly endure physical or psychological injury it is the the only form of recompense that there is.

For those (unselfish souls) that that worry it might add 2p to the cost of their airline ticket. Well, the ticket will still probably cost you less than a pair of decent jeans, and the cost pressure from fuel and airport charges will make any conceivable rise pale into insignificance. Therefore let the survivors have any compensation they may receive after years of fighting for it, whilst the unselfish industry and its equally unselfish providers, continue to compete for your equally unselfish business.

gdiphil

5th Feb 2008, 19:50

Lawyer here.

Pilots posting on this forum in various threads rightly in my view whinge and moan when uninformed speculation about the BA or other incident comes from the non-specialist. Wait for the report is often said and I see no reason to doubt such a sensible view. Similarly I would say that there are some people in this thread who are not specialists in personal injury law as it relates to commercial aviation. My professional opinion is that Ms Moore's article on her firms website is a model of a carefully balanced view of the general law on the subject. No attempt has been made to allege or otherwise impugn the bona fides of the pilots, BA, RR or Boeing, or indeed anyone else. It in effect says here is the current state of the law and wait for the report to make an assessment as to any liability, if at all. I am not in any way connected to Leigh Day & Co or to Ms Moore, indeed I've never met the lady.

120.4

5th Feb 2008, 22:11

Unless you have experienced the trauma of such an event and the subsequent problems that may be associated with it, what grounds do you have to proffer disparaging criticism ?

Let's see now... How many of the pax actually realised they'd been in an accident before they were asked to evacuate down the slides? And at the time they went down the slide it is odds-on they knew they weren't going to die or be seriously hurt. Some went on TV to confirm, with smiling faces, that they were not aware of any "situation" before the evacuation. Traumatic event??? Such talk is an excuse used after the event to justify personal greed. Sure, some have been injured and are entitled to be compensated for that but don't tell me that the majority have sufferred such trauma that justifies compensation - it is pure, unadulterated opportunism. Shame on them. :{

Like most, I've sufferred at the hands of others over the years and I know I given out plenty myself - it's the nature of human existance I'm afraid - $h!t happens; the mature man accepts that as part of life and doesn't seek advantage out of it. I've been involved in car crashes that shook me up a bit - so what? Would I sue? Tomorrow it might be me that causes it. Would I want to be sued? This is an outstanding example of the lack of compassion that exists in this world... "Sod the effect on everybody else, what can I squeeze out of this for me?"

This time next week I'll be airborne out of LL for HKG and I accept now that I may not get there, or back.

.4

Bealzebub

5th Feb 2008, 22:55

Hmmm... ATCO ! My first guess was Insurance underwriter.

My contribution was based on the personal experience of a very close family member who had been seriously injured in an aircraft crash. The AAIB report made 4 recomendations, all relating to either the engine manufacturer, the engine overhaul company, their manuals and their personel. The insurance company spent years attempting to resile from their third party liability. I have little sympathy for them, although as commercial enterprises desperate to turn a profit, I understand their position.

Having seen the trauma that results from accidents I can only speak first hand as an observer and participent in the aftermath, hence the contribution.

I appreciate your opinion / prejudice of how "life sucks", but when this actually happens to you it really is different. As I already pointed out, you need not worry about claims for minor injuries as they are usually paltry in the UK. Any passengers that do suffer deeper or long term damage will also likely have to fight long and hard for any reasonable recompense, even that recompense will not likely compensate them in any real terms. Not everybody is some sort of scrounger, although the insurance industry is happy to propogate that belief, and seemingly you are content to lap it up.

Enjoy HKG, I am sure you will be fine.

sandbank

6th Feb 2008, 00:59

I suspect there may well be a Health and Safety prosecution brought against BA prior to any civil action by passengers for compensation.

The overarching legal question is whether the airline did everything it could have done - or should have done (i.e. according to its own operating procedures and crew-training)_ to ensure the safety of its passengers - and whether those procedures were adequate.

It seems already well-established that the passengers were not alerted to adopt the brace position - and this may be held to indicate a major omission in an operation where passenger safety is paramount. The fact that the passengers were then evacuated swiftly is to the credit of the cabin crew - but it was damn lucky for all concerned that there was no fire.

Pizzaro

6th Feb 2008, 12:08

Wonder if the surviving Busby Babes sued BEA ????

sandbank

6th Feb 2008, 13:01

Well it's a good question.

I don't believe the survivors received any compensation - although I suppose standard payouts were made to the families of those who died.

Certainly the former United captain and Munich survivor Bill Foulkes received no compensation at all. He was so hard up he had to sell his medals

Woofrey

6th Feb 2008, 13:04

Is anyone else not entirely convinced by Tightslop's opinion that the a/c would have 'exploded on impact' if the B777 had landed on the tarmac instead ofthe grass. My knowledge of heavy jet ops is somewhat limited but i seem to remember an A330 achieving something similiar in the Azores.

Surely the B777 would have survived relatively intact if it had landed on the runway instead of the grass?

I agree with you. As I understand it the impact on the grass was mainly responsible for the undercarriage shearing off, if they had made the runway it would probably have been a (very) hard landing and the discussion on here would be about a "reported engine failure on finals at LHR".

Taildragger67

6th Feb 2008, 13:40

On hearing of the crash the first thought that went through my mind was "oh dear, I hope BA has a good lawyer lined up." Pity we have to think that way but that is the way of the world.

I have legal qualifications so I'm usually willing to hear the lawyer's side, but this is greed.

But greed not only - or even primarily - on the part of the lawyer, but the litigants. There will have been people call lawyers, wondering what they can get out of the big, bad, cashed-up (so they think) corporate that is BA.

Who knows, it might even pay for a new car or a fancy holiday.

It's the way of the world now, it's inevitable. If something goes wrong, someone will get sued.

aviate1138

6th Feb 2008, 18:02

"Personally I don't think the 'no-win, no-fee' culture has anything to do with it."

Aviate1138 chokes....

What!!!!!!! And the band played "Believe it if you like!"

When did the world suddenly embrace 100% absolutely dead certain safety, always?

Frankly the Legal Profession needed jobs for the legally unemployed/unemployable and

'no-win, no-fee' was born.

And like lemmings the greedy UK lawyers jumped on the bandwaggon.

Cherie Bliar is a human rights lawyer isn't she? Another legal scam for grabbing loads

of money. :rolleyes:

rubik101

7th Feb 2008, 17:51

If you watched the BBC tv programme on the Munich 'disaster' as they refer to it, you will have seen Harry Gregg up close.
If ever anyone deserved compensation, he would surely be at the head of the queue. Injured during the crash, he returned into the wreckage four times, pulling the living out of the burning plane. He never received a bean, from anyone, nor did he ever ask for it.
Danny Blanchflower never played football again due to his injuries. He also got nothing from anyone by way of compensation. He turned to journalism for his living.
I am not suggesting that compensation should not be paid, but if it is to be paid then lets restrict it to those who are physically injured.
Most of the pax interviewed after the incident said they thought it was just a bumpy landing! How traumatic can that have been?
I expect some of my recent landings in the windy weather have been more dramatic than the BA 'landing'.

dollydaydream

7th Feb 2008, 18:03

rubik101

Sorry to be pedantic but it was Jackie Blanchflower who survived the air crash. He was the brother of Danny who played for Spurs and Northern Ireland , retiring in 1964. Jackie never played again due to injuries received in the crash he died in 1998 from cancer.

///mav

7th Feb 2008, 21:27

Oops, just realised my reply should have been on another thread, doh. So to correct myself: financial compensation would be appropriate for people who have been physically injured, and for those with psychological injuries. With the latter, that would have to be determined by medical professionals and actually have some impact on the individual's day to day living. Someone who has said that they didn't know anything was really wrong until they got off the 'plane and has no other complaint than trouble getting home, got all their possessions back and who never obviously could take years to determine suffers any sort of PTSD, nightmares, flashbacks or anything else doesn't, to my mind, have anything to claim for.

Indeminity is supposed to put things back to how they were before an event. As has already been said money can't make up for injury or psychological injury, but it's something.

I still think everyone involved should be grateful to be alive and show some appreciation for the BA crew, but that's not as newsworthy perhaps?

I'm, obviously, SLF & from an insurance background :O so it's just personal opinion. Oh, and "Act of God" was certainly still in use last time I looked.

PAXboy

7th Feb 2008, 23:05

sandbankIt seems already well-established that the passengers were not alerted to adopt the brace position - and this may be held to indicate a major omission in an operation where passenger safety is paramount.Just a word in their favour. It has been established in the other threads that, from the moment that engine thrust was lost, to the moment of impact was between 40 and 50 seconds.

In that time, the flight deck crew had to face a problem that no one had ever been trained for, because it was not supposed to happen. I realise, of course, that it would have been grand for them to have warned the cabin but they got them on the ground in one piece with only one serious injury. I would call that exercising a duty of care but I am not a lawyer!

The most remarkable points were pax from the flight saying, "We did not realise we had crashed" and "Many instinctively reached for their bags from the overhead locker" Sounds like many of the pax were OK but, I am not a lawyer!

Llademos

8th Feb 2008, 06:18

Excellent article in the Telegraph today ... My escape from BA038 was damn fun. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/08/do0801.xml) Not surprised, however that the '... BAA seemed to show little concern for the fact that we had been in an accident; they were at that stage unaware of what had happened and should have assumed that events had been more severe. They also seemed surprised that there could have been a plane crash at the airport. It seems that if it doesn't involve spending money in the shops, the BAA aren't interested. :ugh:

Ll

Woofrey

8th Feb 2008, 08:31

Llademos - there are a heck of a lot of new people in the terminals and management at BAA who seem to think that the only thing they are responsible for is getting passengers through security. This seems to have been indoctrinated by the recent "process management" gurus bought in from the manufacturing industry, and amplified by the appalling experiences of last year, widely reported in the media. I suspect it's this crowd that the BA pax had interaction with.

There are still good, experienced people in airfield operations and fire service working for BAA and I know that some of these see this incident as a wake up call for BAA senior management, it has made them realise that "oh, you mean we're responsible for the airfield as well......" Sad, I know.

WHBM

8th Feb 2008, 09:15

I am pleased that I live in a free country, so people are able to make their own decisions about using the law without being restricted by officials working to their own agendas.

I am also pleased that part of living in a free country includes the fact that whenever I see a greedy, grasping, opportunistic, thoroughly ungrateful to the people who saved their life, ba5tard, I can call them that as well.

Oneil

8th Feb 2008, 09:32

And so it starts-----

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7234220.stm

PAXboy

8th Feb 2008, 11:33

from that BBC report: Paul Strafford, a university lecturer from London, said he was taking legal action over the trauma he suffered as a result of the emergency landing.

He said he has been highly anxious and unable to sleep since the accident in which all 152 passengers and crew were evacuated from the plane safely.

BA said it was talking to all customers who were on board flight 38.Yeah, it's so much more difficult to sleep when you are alive.

Now, if liability is proved, then it might be reasonable to ask for compensation but here's a funny thing ... someone has a heart attack (which might have been caused by genetics or their lifestyle) and they say, "That really woke me up and I realised how precious my life was. I knew I had to change lots of things to make the most of my time."

Someone has a plane crash (not their fault) which is far less likely to happen than a heart attack and they say that they want to grab anything they can from anyone else.

At least no one ever said that humans were logical and rational beings.

FOXPRESIDENT

8th Feb 2008, 11:59

(appologies if this is not right forum, and I've looked and I could not find the story on here)

Has anyone heard about the University Lecturer who is sueing British Airways for 85K over the LHR Air Crash.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7234220.stm

Personally I think it's discusting and he should be greatful he is alive. :mad:

Bealzebub

8th Feb 2008, 12:12

Liability is already proved. The carrier accepts by default that it was responsible for transporting the passenger safely to their destination. In this case that didn't happen. The reasons for the accident still have to be established, but it is extremely unliklely that the passenger was contributory to the cause of the accident. The airline has suffered loss. It has lost a hull, it has lost business as a result. It has lost money by having to replace that unit on a temporary basis. However the good news is they have insurance, and they would have passed this matter on to their insurers. It will be the same with third party damage claims such as passenger losses, accident recovery operations, damage to the airport structures, third party compensation claims etc. etc. It will all involve a lot of money and a lot of time. However that is the "risk" business that the insurers are involved in. At the end of the day this is simply about money. Nothing else, just money.

In this whole process, the only emotions that come into play are those associated with the human casualties. Unfortunetaly the end result for these people will be the same, money. They might get a sympathetic letter and an offer of counselling, but nothing will put them back to the position they were in prior to the accident. Instead a figure will be agreed or determined that ends this matter for the insurer. In that respect just the same as the solution for dealing with the other commercial aspects.

In anology, if you hit a pedestrian with your car it isn't very different. They might suffer little physical damage as well. They might have a poor medical history. They might thank their lucky stars they are alive. However none of that absolves you as the party that injured them. The same procedure would result. The matter would be passed to your insurance company who would deal with the claim from the third party. It wouldn't be your problem in that respect any more.

For anyone that thinks injured claimants are greedy, they can console themselves with the knowledge that insurance companies are much much greedier. They are unemotive large commercial enterprises who thrive and profit on taking premiums quickly, and settling claims reluctantly, glacially and often never.

PositiveRate876

8th Feb 2008, 12:12

That's a frivolous lawsuit. (The English are learning from Americans)

The only person that has a right to sue on that aircraft was the man that had his leg shattered as the RH MLG came though the wall. The pax cabin should be better protected than that.

Sue Boeing only though. BA has nothing to do with it for as long as the pilots are not found to be the primary cause, which I doubt will happen.

James 1077

8th Feb 2008, 12:17

Excellent comment piece in the Torygraph on the flight from a pax perspective entitled:

My escape from BA038 was damn fun (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/08/do0801.xml)

Andy_S

8th Feb 2008, 12:23

I think, as has been mentioned elsewhere, it should be remembered that BA contracted to deliver this passenger from A to B safely and without incident.

Clearly this didn't happen.

As such, he's within his rights to demand compensation, and to enforce that demand through the courts. This seems quite fair and reasonable to me, provided that the compensation he receives is proportionate to any physical / mental trauma suffered, whether such injury is permanent, whether it has a short or long term impact on this gentlemans quality of life, and whether there are any mitigating circumstances (like the pilots saving his life).

So I would suggest......£250?? Out of which he'd be obliged to pay his legal costs of course :E :E

Bealzebub

8th Feb 2008, 13:19

I wonder if it is a peculiarly English mindset, that we simply resent anybody receiving recompense instead of simply putting up with their bad luck ?

There are many incidents and some similiar to this one, where those involved appeared perfectly fine and uninjured, only later, sometimes many months later, going on to suffer serious mental impairments that impacted on their lives. A relatively common after effect is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which became a common event with American soldiers returning from Vietnam. It was a largely researched and diagnosed disorder because of this war. Since then it has been better understood in victims of other accidents, serious assaults etc. In most cases the disorder can be treated successfully, and the person leads a perfectly normal life, but in a few cases it can be debilitating to the extent the person cannot continue to work in the role they previously have.

There have been a few cases of pilots suffering PTSD and being grounded as result, thus some losing their careers. In cases where the PTSD was as the result of an accident or serious incident, that would generate a possible claim in just the same manner as physical injuries where the result was the same.

I am sure in this incident, there were more than a few raised eyebrows at the carriers decision to parade the aircrew in front of the media, within hours of a seriously traumatic event. Nobody doubts the bravery, dedication and duty that these people exhibited, but the poor CSD looked visibly traumatised before the cameras. I am sure the other flightcrew felt similarly stressed in their own individual ways.

Hopefully all of the crew are fine, and through counselling with professionals, friends or their own families, they are able to deal with this event and get on with their normal lives. If however PTSD were to seriously manifest itself now or at some future point, the CAA would most definetaly not permit the individual to fly. That could be a short term requirement, but if it wasn't, then it would likely result in a large financial claim. Would that be unreasonable ? No. So why it is so "frivolous" or unreasonable to assume that the passengers might not suffer similarly ?

As I have already pointed out, claims ( and frivolous ones are usually dismissed) in UK courts, often take many years to come to trial. Awards for injuries are often derisory. Large awards are normally a reflection of future loss of earnings and only made in very few cases. The procedure will take many many years as there is often nothing to lose for the insurers in protracting the process, and everything to gain.

It is unlikely that the majority of the participants to this accident will have suffered serious long term damage ( mental or physical), and the eventual monetary insurance payouts will probably reflect that, however it is purile to suggest that will be the result for everybody. Pilots saving a life is not a mitigation (they are doing their job), and there is nothing to suggest any mitigation is necessary. It is good that a passenger has called a newspaper to say "it was fun" and she is fine and will not be making any claim. In her case hopefully that proves to be true. Certainly if she suffers any PTSD in the months to come, the lawyers for the insurance company will have few qualms about re-quoting her words to her.

Some of the glib comments made here are in ignorance of the procedure and of the facts. They are based on tabloid snippets and ill informed prejudice.

JFW

8th Feb 2008, 14:08

No, I don't think that the no-win, no-fee structure has anything to do with it.

Litigated claims have gone down, not up, in the years since no-win no-fee was introduced. The incentive for lawyers (and yes, I am one, and most of my work is done on no-win no-fee) is to take on 'dead certs' and not to take on anything that is the slightest bit risky - as we are not prepared to do a whole heap of work if there is a good chance that we won't get paid for it. The economics of the legal profession just don't work like that - in the same way that most other professions don't do most of their work knowing that there is little chance of being paid for it.

As the others have pointed out, the claim simply gets passed to the insurers who will deal (usually in a protracted and mean spirited fashion) with the claims that they have insured. They have received the premiums, now they have to pay out.

Andy_S

8th Feb 2008, 14:13

Bealzebub,

My "glib comments" were, of course, tongue in cheek, including the bit about the mitigating circumstances. For the most part, I'm in agreement with your earlier post.

In all seriousness, I have no problem with passengers (or anyone else directly caught up in the incident) being compensated. My only caveat is that any such compensation should be proportionate to the inconvenience caused to the lives in question, from the minor (loss of luggage) to the major (serious injury) from the short term (disruption to ongoing travel arrangements) to the long term (permanent disability). What I, and I'm sure many others object to, are those who take the p**s.

I'm not the best person to quantify appropriate levels of compensation. However, it strikes me that in this case most of the passengers didn't even realise anything was wrong until the aircraft touched down, and that with just a few exceptions injuries were restricted to cuts and bruises. Surely in the vast majority of cases any claim would be restricted to superficial injuries, a few minutes of stress while the 'plane was evacuated, loss of luggage and short term inconvenience while they were processed. Under the circumstances, claiming tens of thousands of pounds strikes me as trying to take advantage of the situation.

The figure of £250 I quoted was plucked out of thin air. Maybe in truth it should be more than this. The point I was trying to make is that if people knew that making frivolous claims was likely to leave them out of pocket, they might think twice about doing it.

Perhaps BA should offer all the passengers a variable sum of compensation, to be fixed by an independent 3rd party, on a take it or leave it basis. If they want more, they would have to chase BA through the courts, but would be liable for any costs incurred.

JFW

8th Feb 2008, 14:21

Perhaps BA should offer all the passengers a variable sum of compensation, to be fixed by an independent 3rd party, on a take it or leave it basis.

I thought that was what happened when people sued for compensation? They receive a sum of damages fixed by the court.

The damages will be assessed on the basis of the injuries they suffered. Minimal injuries = minimal damages. So all thoses who say that if people aren't injured they shouldn't receive anything - they won't.

PAXboy

8th Feb 2008, 16:16

PositiveRate876The only person that has a right to sue on that aircraft was the man that had his leg shattered as the RH MLG came though the wall. The pax cabin should be better protected than that.That's a good one. Boeing should add lots of extra weight to the fuselage, for all of their clients to carry around - just in case one of them has a nasty landing and the MLG penetrates the cabin? Making the aircraft less cost effective and efficient would cost more than the occasional compensation. Also, the compensation is paid by the insurers of the carrier concerned. If the manufacturer made the aircraft heaver - everyone would burn more fuel every day and everyone would pay.

By the way, it was the Port [left] side gear strut that came up, the starboard one was swept away.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1318203&photo_nr=4&prev_id=1318129&next_id=1320279

James 1077

8th Feb 2008, 19:42

Litigated claims have gone down, not up, in the years since no-win no-fee was introduced.

Possibly because, as you know, the vast majority of these spurious claims are settled out of court due to it being more expensive to defend the case in court than it is to simply settle the case. And it isn't like the defendant can pass the costs onto the other party as they generally don't have enough money to pay them.

What is needed is the ability for a judge to decide that if someone is obviously just trying it on then the law firm taking on their case should pay the costs. That should cut down on about 95% of the "Have you stubbed your toe at work? Well you could claim £XXX off someone for your clumsiness" adverts on telly during the daytime!