UAL sued over 911

[Cyclic Hotline]

United Sued for Hijacking Attack on Twin Towers

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The widow of a New Hampshire man who was a passenger on the United Air Lines flight that slammed into the World Trade Center filed on Thursday what is believed to be the first suit against an airline stemming from the Sept. 11 attacks.

The wrongful death suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, alleges that United breached its duty to care for the safety of the passengers on Flight 175. The suit filed by Ellen Mariani, whose husband, Louis, was killed in the attack, seeks unspecified damages.

The Nolan Law Group, the Chicago firm that filed the suit, said it believed this was the first action against an airline seeking to hold it liable for the hijacking.

Louis Mariani, a 59-year-old retired sales coordinator at H.P. Hood, died when the plane hit Tower Number Two of the World Trade Center. The suit alleged that he suffered severe fright and terror before dying in the crash.

A spokesman for United said the airline does not comment on pending litigation.

[Zulu]

Good to see things are back to normal again in America...

[TALUFTE]

I suppose it was only a matter of time before this happened. Since UAL is hemmeraging cash at the rate of $10million/day this could have the potential to snowball into the demise of UAL and AA if enough relatives should join the fray.
Pain and Suffering suffered by the pax due to the airline? Perhaps OBL, Al-Qaeda et al should be named as co-defendants in the suits. Imagine...UAL, AA, OBL, and Al-Qaeda all named as the co-defendants in a class action lawsuit. Only in America.
Risque? Perhaps but just because I lighten the subject matter does not mean it is taken lightly.

[ive348]

This can only be possible in America. Where else could you sue a company or person for something it/he can not help, and probably win! Don't get me wrong, of course this lady suffered a great loss, but what happens if this leads to the demise of UAL or AA? What about the families of all the employes? Isn't it enough that so many families suffered on 9/11? Does this really have to lead to the loss of several thousand more jobs?

[Das Pferd]

After being left devastated by a foreign terrorist attack UAL will now be sent to the wall by their own countrymen. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Hold at Saffa]

President Clinton once remarked that there was nothing wrong with America that couldn't fixed by what is right with America.

It is somehow so very sad that, as this dreadful year in the history of aviation draws to a close, the Nolan Law Group chooses not to share in the President's wonderful vision and spirit.

[legend11]

This lawsuit is a legal tactic in this country which attempts to force an early settlement by UAL, outside and beyond the limitations already in place.

As you say, only in America..........

[filejw]

This lawsuit will bring out the fact that the airlines should have known this type of event could happen.For the last four or five years we have been told at recurrent these people are real and guess what they finally showed up.I don`t think anybody that attended the same security modules as I was at all surprised.

[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: filejw ]</p>

[ScottishSteve]

im flying with UAL on Sunday...i've heard some weird "Yer £3 cover charge wont save ya son!"

What do you think my chances of getting home are?

Steve

[OzExpat]

Perhaps this legal action should also have involved the airport, where security measures weren't tight enough? Or the Air Traffic Controllers for not acting quickly enuf, or the USAF for the same thing. Oh, what the hell, why not also name the FAA and Bill Clinton as co-defendents and make a proper job of it! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[smiths]

Sharks don't eat lawyer. Do you know why? Professional courtesy.

[Unwell_Raptor]

Something similar happened with PanAm and Lockerbie.

The logic beats me. If you are a guest in my house, and a criminal breaks in and attacks you, it is somehow my fault for not having fortified the house!

God Bless (and God Help) America!

[thedude]

There's nothing more distasteful than the display of overt personal greed, especially when seen under the guise of moral high ground. The system allows it and is perpetuated because of the money that can be made. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[groundbum]

just to clarify slightly, the airlines are responsible for ground security of the people boarding their aircraft.

So, although the work at the scanners and so forth was naturally contracted out, the responsibility for making sure that the people on the plane are there legitimately rests with United. Whether they needed to beef their intelligence up, and have better scanners, or use improved risk computer systems is all conjecture, but the buck does stop at United.

Doesn't make it right though..

[Big Tudor]

But what then happens when you beef up security? You get sued for infringment of civil liberties. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[lamer]

Let's be brutally honest here, the woman stands to gain (potentially) 10's of millions of $$$$.

I have serious doubts that half the indignant posters here would not be seriously tempted if they found themselves in similar circumstances.

Who really cares about 50000 unemployed if you have $50000000 in the bank.

A bit inflammatory but still .....

Regards.

[737type]

lamer,

You hit the nail on the head. Nothing tends to blind people's judgement more than money.

[Zulu]

lamer - I think you'll find most people's reaction when faced with personal tragedy is NOT to immediately call their lawyers and start counting the money.

[burnden]

zulu - you're right, but sadly it is most peoples next reaction these days. Encouraged by a society where litigation brings vast rewards to both "victims" and lawyers alike.
It makes you despair if you think about it too long. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[RATBOY]

What I have not seen on this thread is the announcement yesterday of a fund administered by the Justice Department (don't laugh, OBL's boys are under every bed....really) to pay off all the victims of 9/11. The formula is to take the probable lifetime earnings if person had not been murdered add a certain number of dollars for pain and suffering subtract what the family gets in insurance settlement and retirement plan funds and the number that comes out to be paid by the US Gov. $50,000 now the rest when the calculations are made. The rub is by taking the money you must agree not to sue anybody.

To sue is to take a chance on getting boatloads of lovely money somewhere down the road and giving lots of it to the lawyers or maybe not getting much of anything. You pays your money and takes your chances.

[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: RATBOY ]</p>

[Shore Guy]

Perhaps we should all send our comments and feelings directly to the firm:

[email protected]

I just did (text below)


Yes, you must all be very proud. Reaping financial gain from the Sep. 11
disaster. What do you tell your kids you do for a living?

Aviation plaintiff attorneys have sunk to a new low - and I truly thought
they could go no lower.

Happy Holidays.

********* (Shore Guy)
757/767 Capt.

[Speedbird59]

Reading this makes me feel sick. I don't think there is a single person alive who hasn't been affected in some way by the events of September 11th.

The immediate response of America and her allies reflected all that was best about our society. Unfortunately the kind of action being pursued by the Nolan Law Group is beyond description. At a time when the US is battling through a recession - particularly aviation - this kind of action amounts to treachery.

[bblank]

OK, you can guess at the motives of the Nolan Law Group. But lawyers do not sue on their own behalf - they must represent a plaintiff.

Mrs. Mariani, the plaintiff, may be suing because she is angry, not because she is greedy. From a NY Daily News report:

"The couple was flying separately from Boston to California to attend the wedding of Mariani's daughter. She said her husband had not planned to go to the wedding, fearing it would cost too for much both of them to travel. But she raised enough money from a yard sale to surprise her husband with a ticket."

Try to imagine how you would feel in her shoes.

In order to sue, Mrs. Mariani is giving up a substantial and relatively speedy federal benefit. In the end she will receive greater compensation as the result of her suit but it will most likely stretch out her pain. However, if she feels some responsibility (and of course she should not but that is how the mind works) then pinning the blame on UAL may help.

With all the suicide terrorist attacks on US life and property abroad, with the security conferences filejw speaks of, and with a film such as Executive Decision depicting the use of a civilian a/c as a suicide terrorist's weapon it will not be easy to make the defence that the nature of the events of 9 11 could not be reasonably foreseen.

The report states:
"'She doesn't want taxpayers to have to make payment for her loss,' said Mariani's lawyer, Donald Nolan. 'She has elected to sue because United Airlines is fully insured for her loss.'" (Nolan is reported to have expressed the belief that UAL has 1.5 billion in liability coverage.)

Taking this at face value it appears that she is angry at UAL and wants to hold them responsible for the lack of cockpit security.

(Apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate. Danny was at the pub when I sent it the first time.)

[GlueBall]

The Sept attacks were declared "an act of war" which precludes direct carrier liability for death and injury. But in this great country of the U.S. of A. where McDonald's Restaurant was successfully sued for Millions in punitive damages over a spilled hot cup of coffee...there are no limits to judicial imagination.

[BIG PARTYR]

GOD BLESS AMERICA.....The home of the rave

[RATBOY]

If Glueball is referring to the Arizona case the lady received second and third degree burns requiring skin grafts and significant hospitalization. The Mc Donald has been complained to numerous times for serving the coffee too hot, but chose to ignore the complaints. And by the way, the damages award was significantly reduced on appeal.

[Jetdriver]

Am I missing something here ?

Are the companies in question not insured ?

If they are then they will presumably pass these claims to their insurors. Isn't that why people or companies pay premiums ?

A claim is a potential loss on the policy, and even that is far from a certainty!

Rarely does money properly compensate for injury or the loss of a family member, unfortunetaly it is the only form of redress that is on the table. Whatever the circumstances and however much is or isn't paid to the claimants one thing you can be fairly sure of is that nobody will say sorry !

[FL395]

What a complete Disgrace....but only in America
What short memories people have of the suffering.

I know some of my friends who fly for US majors who now have insurance which protects their estate in the unfortunate case that they are killed in an incident and the relatives of the dead passengers try to take their wife/kids/estate..etc to court to gain some recompense. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

This of course happnened already but where does company insurance cover the pilot's estate and family in these situations????
I can't believe that this is happening but then as one person already has stated...who really cares when you have $50000000.00 in the bank
The yanks should really kick this one out of court and get on with building the business and country back up.....not intent on grabbing money.
What good will it do her.....it won't bring her husband back.....sadly.

[Anti Skid On]

I've just read on Teletext that the US govt is offering the families of the unfortunate people who died US$1.5million (it varies from $0.5.to $4.5 depending on age, quals, etc.) Perhaps the unfortunate widower is making a point in an attempt to get the govt to up the payment.

However it is America, where a woman who tried to dry her poodle in the microwave successfully sued the makers for not including a warning in the instruction manual!

[Prof2MDA]

From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com," target="_blank">www.opinionjournal.com,</a> Best of the Web:

Ellen Mariani, a New Hampshire woman whose husband was on the plane that hit 2 World Trade Center, is suing United Airlines, alleging that the airline "breached its duty to care for the safety of the passengers on Flight 175." She's represented by the Nolan Law Group, a Chicago firm so crass it has actually set up a page <a href="http://www.nolan-law.com/comm_disaster/commaviation12.html" target="_blank">http://www.nolan-law.com/comm_disaster/commaviation12.html</a> on its Web site soliciting Sept. 11 clients. Mariani had previously been the subject of sympathetic profiles in the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader <a href="http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=5429" target="_blank">http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=5429</a> and the Daily Southtown <a href="http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/kadner/x30-pkd1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/kadner/x30-pkd1.htm</a> of suburban Chicago. "I think Mrs. Mariani is using her battle for compensation as a form of therapy," Southtown columnist Phil Kadner wrote--before Mariani sued the airline.

[thedude]

Brian Blank, the plaintiff's argument is 'well they are insured'. I rest my case!
I seem to recollect that due to the rising costs of liability insurance, if they can get it at all, companies are either in danger of folding, passing on the increases to pax or have to get government bail out funding (taxpayer money).
Would the plaintiff accept an assurance that every 'reasonable' step would be taken to stop a re-occurance. Of course they wouldn't. You can dress it up in as much flowery legal argument as you like. It's still driven by GREED.
Just slightly off topic, is it possible to sue a lawyer for your loosing a court case? If so would you get another lawyer to represent you in that action?
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[Flight Safety]

It's also quite possible that UAL's insurance carriers do not cover "acts of war".

[Budgie69]

I thought that the scum were carrying weapons that were legally permitted, i.e. security would allow knives etc. with a blade length of 3 inches. Presumably the security parameters were set by the FAA. How can the airlines be at fault?

[bugg smasher]

Despite the fact that many legal types frequent this forum, the lawyer’s point of view is noticeably absent from this thread. Two possibilities exist here, either this discussion is beneath one’s dignity, or it entails an eventual admission of personable responsibility, something which would be extremely trying for those who merely “argue the case”. Surprising really, those who make a living defending others seem quite reluctant to defend themselves.

Anyone out there care to join the fray? Cat got yer forked tongue mateys?

[ 23 December 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]</p>

[GotTheTshirt]

RATBOY,
The McDonald lady WAS driving a car at the time.
Also hot coffee does tend to be on the warm side !

[Shore Guy]

The response "they’re insured" holds no water. Who ultimately pays for that insurance? Us, the consumers. The only winners in this game are the attorneys.

It is my understanding that the torts system on the east side of the pond is dramatically different, with restrictions on contingency fees, solicitation, and most importantly, penalties for filing frivolous suits. There are few such restrictions in the US (the lawyers make the law).

In the US, we have the highest lawyer/citizen ratio of any country in the world. Those who have been here have seen, read the repulsive advertisements for plaintiff attorneys soliciting for every imaginable perceived fault/slight under the sun. General Aviation was brought to its knees by the litigation issue, and the costs involved with liability coverage are enormous.

My son and I were discussing his career path recently (he is a senior in college), and the issue/possibility of law school came up. My response was that being a lawyer in this country is no longer an honorable profession.

By the way, my e-mail (previously posted) to the Nolan group remains unanswered - what a surprise.

[dirkdj]

Shore Guy,

I completely understand your feelings, be careful what you post on the internet, some lawyers bite back: see on Avweb, Athur Wolk case against Avweb and several suscribers.

[737type]

One of the best cures for all types of frivolous lawsuits in the US is something that the legal lobby has been fighting tooth and nail against.

Loser pays everything. Just like in a lot of European nations. So before any attorney takes on a "juicy" case on contingency s/he would think about the possibility of losing and whether their client has the means to pay everyone's legal bills (especially his).

Of course, more importantly, it would encourage a lot of potential plaintiffs to think about it long and hard. Do I really have a strong case? Can I afford to risk everything for this "possible judgement"?

[polzin]

If we are going to talk about justice and truth let us leave Bill Clintons name out of this. Secondly
, What is this "only in America" talk. Didnt the British government give up to 40,000 pounds to certain subjects who suffered mental anguish after watching the twin towers attack time after time on BBC television? Is it possible that thes poor creatures didnt know that the TV set had an OFF button?
[QUOTE] I am now Y2 compliant !!!

[bblank]

thedude, The plaintiff's argument is actually "It was the duty of United Airlines to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety and security of its passengers." I'm not a lawyer so I have neither the interest nor the expertise to argue her case.

Budgie69, As to "How can the airlines be at fault?", do you remember this image?
<a href="http://www.stethem.navy.mil/history/hijacking/hijacking_files/twa847.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.stethem.navy.mil/history/hijacking/hijacking_files/twa847.jpg</a>
Agreed that that was an entirely different type of hijacking, but in the sixteen years that have passed since TWA flight 847, steps were not taken to secure the cockpit. Had I been directly responsible for a family member being on board one of the four 9 11 flights then I would probably feel that the airlines had not done enough in the way of security. Whether or not a lawsuit is the best response I leave to others to debate.

[caulfield]

I think we all had two responses to 911;firstly,overwhelming grief and then ANGER.How was it possible?Now that a suitable time period has elapsed,it is perhaps time to see some heads roll.
I have every sympathy for this poor woman but her anger is misdirected;the real culprit here is the FAA and by association,the Dept of Transport,and ultimately the US government itself.

I know hindsight is 20/20 but there were some rather conspicuous pointers that something like this was being planned;the foiled attempt to simultaneously hijack several 747's a while back,the Seattle millenium celebration attempt.Not to mention the WTC bombing,USS Cole and the embassy bombings.If we add the Lockerbie disaster (of which there was credible intelligence prior to the incident)to this long list,it would be fair to say that people should have been more careful.
All this post 911 legislation(re-empowering the CIA/baggage checks on domestic flights etc) is fine but the horse has already bolted.
The FAA have been applying tombstone technology in the field of aviation safety for too long and it finally caught up with them big time.
Does this poor woman have a case?Absolutely.But not against UAL who have suffered so much already.

[ 23 December 2001: Message edited by: caulfield ]</p>

[polzin]

At this time I'm not going to take a position one way or another on this lawauit against UAL. Why? Because originally when I heard about the McDonalds Hot coffee lawsuit I was totally against the lady . However that was before I read an article in that capitalistic newpaper The Wall Street Journal. There had been over 30 similar incidents of super hot coffee burning customers to the point of them needing surgury. Mac was able to get more cups of coffee from a pound of coffee than any other fast food company in America. Why? Just a wild guess, but I think that super hot water gets more cups of coffee that has some dark color than cold water. ( American beer is near water and so is Mac coffee.) The jury that awarded the large settlement to her was trying to send a message to a large corporation. It has to be a large award to get their attention. Dont believe it? Just look at the Justice Department fineing Microsoft $1,000,000 per day recently until they stopped a Monopolistic business practise. Did they stop? NO! Because they were making more money by ignoring the Justice Dept. and paying the fine.

[polzin]

When I hear of greed on the part of the people sueing I wonder if everyone understands that in the USA the airlines pay for the security people at the airport. Is it possible that because of THEIR greed that security went to the lowest bidder and they were not very concerned because they had insurance if anything happened. I'm not anti-company or anti - capitalistic but the idea that a company would not cut training or maintinance or security because of the bottom line simply has not been around very long . [quote] <hr></blockquote> I AM NOW Y2 COMPLIANT !!

[Oldjet Jockey]

Is it true that the airlines pay for security services at the airports? Surely there are several if not many airlines that use each airport and I think it may be possible that the airlines are only acting as collectors of the security costs as part of their ticketing and then pass the money on to the security companies.

There are many questions that need answers in relation to this subject :

1. Is there a government or FAA regulation requiring secuity checks at airports (or was there before Sept. 11?

2. If there is such a regulation who is responsible for inspecting and regulating the work of the security staff?

3.What is the responsibility of the airport authorities?

4.Since the attacks on Sept. 11 have been declared "an act of war", by the President, does this mean that the Government assumes responsibility for reparations and compensation to those affected?

5. Did the claimant in this case initiate the legal action by contacting the law firm or did they contact her with an eye to lucrative fees by suggesting she took action.

Whoever initiated the case, if they did not already have the answers to my first four questions, should, in my opinion, be held liable for all the defendents costs if they lose the case.

I do not know the answers to the above questions but believe they are vital in any attempt to lay blame or justify legal action. While the families of the victims have my deepest and genuine simpathy, no legal action will bring back their loved ones or remove the hurt they feel. I am sure that security messures in the states have been and will continue to be strengthened as a result of the lessons learned. Its time that these get rich quick lawyers were put in their place, and that those who failed in their duty to provide security and/or the government are given the opportunity to provide proper compensation to all those who lost lives or limbs. Starting what, if successful, would be the first of many many destructive compensation awards is not only counter productive it is downright stupid. Where I live, those who start vexatious or agravated claims through the courts can find themselves on the wrong side of a heafty penalty to cover the costs and workloads of the defendents. It seems from earlier posts that this is not the case in the USA. What a pity