Passengers in BA 777 LAS Incident to sue...... [Archive]

DaveReidUK

29th Nov 2015, 20:48

Gee, I had a near death experience on the freeway the other day. Do you think I can sue?

Your mean your engine exploded without warning ? Sounds like you had a narrow escape.

Those involved should be glad they escaped with their lives.

Yes, you'd think that at least they could concede that "the pilots and cabin crew performed heroically in guiding the aircraft to an emergency stop and then evacuating all occupants away from the burning aircraft in difficult circumstances"

Oh hang on, they did.

westhawk

29th Nov 2015, 21:12

One can sue for just about anything.

This appears to be just another opportunistic use of the court system to extract loose change from the deep pockets of big industry.

Of course those suffering actual damages should be compensated. But if feeling scared justifies payment then everyone else scared by anything and looking for a free ride should be paid also. By the time the settlement is all divided up, most of us will end up owing more than we're entitled to receive. The difference goes in the lawyers pockets!

ExDubai

29th Nov 2015, 22:36

Gee, I had a near death experience on the freeway the other day. Do you think I can sue?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pPd67CEL54E

Acrosport II

29th Nov 2015, 23:08

Money grabbing individuals, pushed along by the leeches from the legal profession. Those involved should be glad they escaped with their lives. Agreed.

Every Airline in the world should ban them from flying in their Aircraft, along with the scum lawyers.

Let then take a boat, and when they sue them,....all shipping companies should ban them.

Id bet they'd sue the taxi company driving them to the airport too.

Kitiara

29th Nov 2015, 23:15

But remember, Acrosport, they are not sueing the airline, they're sueing the manufacturer, while praising the conduct of the airline and its personnel.

Why would the airline consider banning them from travel?

Now this man on the other hand

Man sues Etihad over back injury from sitting next to obese passenger | Business | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/30/traveller-sues-etihad-back-injury-obese-passenger)

or this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3074509/Passenger-sues-United-Airlines-5MILLION-claiming-7-99-subscription-watch-TV-board-worked-ten-minutes-four-hour-flight.html

Sueing over incidents is not at all a new phenomena. The BA passengers would seem to have, at least, a more reasonable claim than some.

Sqwak7700

30th Nov 2015, 02:04

Then again, what if there is a backstory to why the engine exploded? Just read an article (an excellent one in Vanity Fair) on the rapid growth of airlines outsourcing their maintenance to underbidders in China and Central America. This has been going on for years, as an airline pilot I've seen the result of this first hand - and it ain't pretty.

In today's world of absentee regulatory agencies, financial penalty of screwing up is the only thing keeping airlines even remotely in compliance, and only just barely in some instances. It is only when something goes badly wrong, that the lawsuits spin up and expose a lot of these lapses that should have been stopped by a regulator.

So sue away folks. I have no loyalty to these accountant managed airlines or manufacturers. They've destroyed this profession and many others by lying and cheating. If this malfunction was in any way related to cutting corners at some point along the required processes, then why should we defend that?

HamishMcBush

30th Nov 2015, 07:29

Wel I guess that once one passenger has decided to sue, others join in on the basis that there's nothing to lose and we may all get a significant sum of money in compensation. The (international) law really ought to be changed to clarify what happens in such cases, although if it turns out that the isue was down to a failure to follow a directive or procedure, it gets more complicated. However, shouldn't these facts be established before maybe a Judge makes a decision on liability and "open to prosecution by those directly caught up in the ensuing incident" ?

The old addage of "There are lots of rich lawyers but no rich policemen" springs to mind

EDIT:
And another thing: who promised us an easy life with no stress-related incidents to toughen up our characters? We should be prepared to accept that sometimes we get caught up in incidents outside our control and if we survive, so be it. No financial compensation compulsory.

cats_five

30th Nov 2015, 07:36

<snip>
Man sues Etihad over back injury from sitting next to obese passenger | Business | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/30/traveller-sues-etihad-back-injury-obese-passenger)

or this one

Passenger sues United Airlines for $5MILLION as she couldn't watch TV | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3074509/Passenger-sues-United-Airlines-5MILLION-claiming-7-99-subscription-watch-TV-board-worked-ten-minutes-four-hour-flight.html)
<snip>
.

The second is clearly a free-loader of the worst kind, and had I been sat next to him I'd have been delighted he couldn't watch films during most of the flight.

The first I have some sympathy with, I think he had a valid complaint. I have no idea if he went straight to suing or if he complained and wasn't dealt with sympathetically.

Sober Lark

30th Nov 2015, 08:01

Passengers in BA 777 LAS Incident to sue..

Soon they won't want to exit a burning aircraft quickly least they diminish the amount of a pay-out they may receive from a legal case.

fireflybob

30th Nov 2015, 08:55

Soon they won't want to exit a burning aircraft quickly least they diminish the amount of a pay-out they may receive from a legal case.

I thought quite a few of them did that anyway by taking hand baggage with them.......

clipstone1

30th Nov 2015, 08:58

British passengers are the second most litigious in Europe, only the Irish sue more.

Aviation insurers rate British Passengers is "very expensive" when it comes to compensation and associated legal costs, so I am not surprised at this.

I know the UK tour operators are being sued by families of those involved in the Tunisia terrorist attacks....

DirtyProp

30th Nov 2015, 10:44

...
EDIT:
And another thing: who promised us an easy life with no stress-related incidents to toughen up our characters? We should be prepared to accept that sometimes we get caught up in incidents outside our control and if we survive, so be it. No financial compensation compulsory.Are you kidding?
Every therapist knows that a rather large amount of money is the best cure for emotional distress...

Count of Monte Bisto

30th Nov 2015, 11:37

I hope that anyone injured gets a nice first class ticket to somewhere pleasant with their wife/husband/partner. Everyone else just has to suck it up in my view - you accept the tiny risk involved in aviation when you book your flight. In this case the passengers found their 1 in 26 million chance came up, but still survived - perhaps with odds like that running in their favour they ought to do next week's lottery.

Kitiara

30th Nov 2015, 11:41

Soon they won't want to exit a burning aircraft quickly least they diminish the amount of a pay-out they may receive from a legal case.

Add in the Allegiant issue (Allegiant fires pilot (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/570566-allegiant-fires-pilot-after-ordering-emergency-evacuation.html#post9179741)) and consider the choices facing a captain

pax britanica

30th Nov 2015, 12:08

The people who should be sued in this incident are the pax who picked up and lugged their carry ons with them. they really did visibly endanger lives and go directly against lawful instruction from airline crew , which I think is some sort of offence.

Maybe the defending party can county sue these individuals for endangering life and prolonging the anxiety , fear terror, mental distress the pax are suing for in the first place.

Oddly I would bet that in most cases its the same group of people who think only of themselves.

clipstone1

30th Nov 2015, 14:44

check out the Montreal Convention and the EU incorporation....covering, EU airlines and aircraft operating into the EU:

There is no financial limit on the liability of an EU airline for damages sustained by you in the event of death, wounding or any other bodily injury. For damages up to 113,100 SDRs, the airline cannot contest claims for compensation. Above that amount, the airline can defend itself against a claim by proving that it was not negligent or otherwise at fault.

If you are injured or killed, the airline must make an advance payment to cover immediate economic needs within 15 days. In the event of death, this advanced payment must be at least 16,000 SDRs. An advance payment does not constitute recognition of liability and may be offset against any subsequent sums that are paid.

Any court action to claim damages must be taken within 2 years from the date the aircraft arrived or should have arrived

Speed of Sound

30th Nov 2015, 16:30

The people who should be sued in this incident are the pax who picked up and lugged their carry ons with them........

...Oddly I would bet that in most cases its the same group of people who think only of themselves.

I suspect any defence team will be poring through footage of the evacuation to see if anyone exiting with hand luggage are among the complainants.

It would put a bit of a dampener on your claim of 'severe mental distress' after you were forced to run screaming from the burning aircraft, when the cross examining lawyer points out that your 'distress' didn't stop you from taking the time to make sure you had your iPad and your duty free with you before you left! 😳

Pontius Navigator

30th Nov 2015, 16:57

Once had to sit next to a passenger for whom personal hygiene was unknown. Next time I shall not suck it up. :(

crewmeal

30th Nov 2015, 17:01

I doubt whether anyone can prove that General Electric or Boeing were at fault. It has been suggested that certain parties knew the condition of the engine, but this is pure speculation. In which case it may take decades to sort out. I bet some have gone under the guise of a 'no win no fee' basis.

A quote from Reuters

"Our clients are not critical of BA and feel that the pilots and cabin crew performed heroically in guiding the aircraft to an emergency stop, and then evacuating all occupants away from the burning aircraft in difficult circumstances," Healy-Pratt said in the statement.

I wonder what the difficult circumstances were? Pax taking hand baggage and impeding an evacuation?

The full story.

Passengers on BA jet that caught fire in Las Vegas sue Boeing, GE | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/27/us-britishairways-fire-lasvegas-suit-idUSKBN0TG1TI20151127)

WHBM

30th Nov 2015, 17:40

The people who should be sued in this incident are the pax who picked up and lugged their carry ons with them. they really did visibly endanger lives.
Given that I don't believe there's ever been a case where there has been any loss of life even partly connected with those evacuating taking bags with them, despite it happening very many times, I'm not quite sure how you come to this conclusion.

msbbarratt

30th Nov 2015, 21:36

I doubt whether anyone can prove that General Electric or Boeing were at fault. It has been suggested that certain parties knew the condition of the engine, but this is pure speculation.Comments in one of the other threads about this incident suggest that there was tension between the FAA and GE/Boeing. There was disagreement as to what the maintenance / inspection regime should be following the discovery of cracks in a compressor disk in this engine type.

The FAA, to their credit, imposed a more onerous and expensive regime than the cheaper one advocated by Boeing and GE.

No doubt the report into the incident will cast light on whether the FAA mandated regime was rigorous enough given the evidence available at the time. I can't imagine it will praise Boeing / GE's original stance on how the defect should be handled. However it's perfectly possible that, given the evidence available at the time, that their position was not unreasonable and that the FAA was simply playing it safe.

We won't know until the report is out.

Since When Did a Court Base an Engineering Decision on Reality?

And there in lies the problem for Boeing / GE. Now that this incident has happened it will be easy in court to portray the sequence of exchanges between Boeing/GE and the FAA unfavourably. If the accident report is damning of one or the other, then arguably they'd deserve what would be coming to them.

Cooperate With the Regulator, They Are Your Friend!

There's only one real way for a company to defend itself against actions like this. A company can reach cooperative agreements with the regulator. The stronger the regulator, the better. Then in the event of an incident there can be no question of malice or negligence. That will automatically reduce any court awarded damages, or possibly eliminate them altogether.

If Boeing or GE have spent the last few years trying to reduce the authority of the FAA, they may be about to suffer the consequences. Lobbying for a reduction in regulatory oversight is a good recipe for short term gain for long term pain.

Uber are making the same mistake in the taxi market. The taxi regulations are there to protect customers and operators. If a firm has done everything required of them by the regulators, it is hardly their fault if a rogue driver ends up attacking someone. By ignoring the regulators they are taking on full responsibility for all consequences, with an added dose of wilful negligence thrown in for good measure.

Gauges and Dials

1st Dec 2015, 00:56

Russian Roulette story....

Let's say someone puts one single bullet in a six-shot revolver, spins the cylinder, points the barrel at your head, and pulls the trigger....

Click!... you lucked out, the chamber was empty.

Where do you and he stand?

In concrete space, you suffered no damages. No harm, no foul.

In probability space, he subjected you to a 1/6 chance of dying, so you are entitled to 1/6 the compensation you might have received had he killed you, and he should be punished with at least 1/6 the punishment of premeditated murder.

If a manufacturer acts negligently -- for example, in an automobile, uses cardboard for brake lining material -- and, as it happens, that negligence doesn't actually cause your injury or death, -- for example, because you happened to notice it before driving down a mountain pass -- has the manufacturer harmed you? Are you entitled to compensation?

It's trickier than it looks, and "you didn't actually suffer any concrete loss" is not necessarily a defense.

Acrosport II

1st Dec 2015, 01:35

So sue away folks. I have no loyalty to these accountant managed airlines or manufacturers. They've destroyed this profession and many others by lying and cheating. If this malfunction was in any way related to cutting corners at some point along the required processes, then why should we defend that?

Actually, Have to agree with that. I've left the industry partly as It wasn't the career Id hoped for.

If an airline intentionally skimps of maintenance etc, they deserve it.

My beef is the way people sue for anything (even out of the pilots or Airlines control). It should be on the ticket that no Aircraft can be guaranteed to never fail. (otherwise those 6 monthly Sims sessions were a waist of time and money, the Aircraft/Engine/Hydraulics CANNOT possibly fail.

Every time we drive on the road or motorway, we are subjecting ourselves to risk. But we chose to travel rather than stay at home. The flying public should understand flying is subject to risks too, albeit small, and unless its gross negligence, they shouldn't be allowed to sue. Just IMHO.

clipstone1

1st Dec 2015, 08:15

alas legislation encourages people to sue if you look at my earlier post, legislation says the airline is responsible regardless for approx £103,000 of proven loss, therefore every lawyer in the country would give it a go to prove their client had a loss of at least thing amount as it is easy pickings.

plus of course the most important bit, they will all be on conditional fee agreements (no win no fee, invented in the US but in the EU largely only existing in the UK and Eire) whereby the solicitor will get a nice cut (between 20 and 100%) on top of whatever the passenger gets.

msbbarratt

1st Dec 2015, 21:58

As I recall, nobody slapped Boeing or Rolls for a poorly designed fuel/oil heat exchanger design that resulted in quite a few more (and serious) injuries when BA 038 came in for a dead-stick landing. As well as causing more than a few mysterious uncommanded thrust roll-backs.There are some differences. I recall that it took a lot of detective work to find out what caused the BA038 crash. I can remember that the CAA took a very close look at a lot of things such as the fuel system software. In the end a bunch of ground tests showed that the fault was as you described. Crucially, all this was learned after the crash, not before.

However in this case it seems (and I realise I'm prejudging, the report is not out yet AFAIK) that there was a known issue with the compressor disk (which is what we're all assuming to be the root cause). The difference is that this problem was well known before the compressor disk let go, not afterwards. From a court case point of view, that temporal arrangement is not good for Boeing's or GE's defence.

However

I think that it is highly inappropriate that a civil case is being brought in advance of the report being issued. The investigators should be free to conduct their work unencumbered by the knowledge that their words are going to have more of an impact. They should not have to worry about how their words are going to be interpreted in a court case, they should be allowed to right their conclusions freely.

Now they are implicitly pressurised to come up with a definitive attribution of blame (for that is what a court wants) whereas in fact the true conclusions may be more much more vague.

Of course the investigators in this case are most likely going to be highly professional and immune to the pressure, but it's still going to be in the back of their minds. I think that we'd all be better off if they didn't have to think about it at all.

They should be writing letters of thanks. Well lets see what the investigation reveals first. If warranted then someone or a company should be hauled through the courts by the authorities. If this civil claim stops that happening then we won't get the best attainable improvement in aviation safety.

tdracer

2nd Dec 2015, 00:23

It's called the "lawsuit lottery" for good reason.

I've been involved in lawsuits - on both sides - and based on those experiences my total disgust for lawyers is completely justified :mad:. However, while being involved in a lawsuit is extraordinarily unpleasant, it can be a learning experience. Among other things, I had more than one lawyer tell me (in so many words) that they hate having engineers on the jury because we tend to look for facts and logic, while the lawyers (especially in tort cases) try to appeal to emotions.
I'm surprised that, at least according to the reports I've seen, BA is not listed as a defendant. This violates rule #1 of filing a lawsuit - you list EVERYONE who has any possibility of being liable. You see, it's really easy to drop someone once the lawsuit is filed if it turns out they have no liability - but it's all but impossible to add someone who turns out to be liable - you basically have to quit and start over again.
If it turns out (and I'm just hypothesizing here - not trying to impugn BA) that mandated inspections were either not done, or not done correctly and existing cracks were missed, GE/Boeing can simply say 'if BA had done what we told them to do (and what the AD mandated), this never would have happened' and they're pretty much off the hook. The lawyers will need to go back and start over again.

msbbarratt

2nd Dec 2015, 06:27

Among other things, I had more than one lawyer tell me (in so many words) that they hate having engineers on the jury because we tend to look for facts and logic, while the lawyers (especially in tort cases) try to appeal to emotions.

I have done jury duty here in the UK and seen what a jury is like from the inside. I can assure you that the last place you ever want to be is in front of one depending on them reaching a reasoned decision.

Personally speaking I find the whole jury system and the poor way in which scientific, medical and technical evidence is handled by UK courts disgraceful and appalling. It has lead to quite a few well publicised miscarriages of justice and suicides. I really don't know how judges can preside over such a sorry state of affairs and sleep well in their beds at night. The inquisitorial system used throughout much of Europe is far better.

gcal

2nd Dec 2015, 07:59

'Personally speaking I find the whole jury system and the poor way in which scientific, medical and technical evidence is handled by UK courts disgraceful and appalling. It has lead to quite a few well publicised miscarriages of justice and suicides. I really don't know how judges can preside over such a sorry state of affairs and sleep well in their beds at night. The inquisitorial system used throughout much of Europe is far better'

I utterly agree.
A barrister acquaintance reckons that 40 percent of those found guilty are in fact innocent - which is reflected in the light sentences passed down; sentences often criticised by the media.
There is also no automatic right of appeal which is a travesty in this day and age.

DirtyProp

2nd Dec 2015, 09:27

DirtyProp

2nd Dec 2015, 09:31

Actually, Have to agree with that. I've left the industry partly as It wasn't the career Id hoped for.

If an airline intentionally skimps of maintenance etc, they deserve it.

My beef is the way people sue for anything (even out of the pilots or Airlines control). It should be on the ticket that no Aircraft can be guaranteed to never fail. (otherwise those 6 monthly Sims sessions were a waist of time and money, the Aircraft/Engine/Hydraulics CANNOT possibly fail.

Every time we drive on the road or motorway, we are subjecting ourselves to risk. But we chose to travel rather than stay at home. The flying public should understand flying is subject to risks too, albeit small, and unless its gross negligence, they shouldn't be allowed to sue. Just IMHO.
Agreed.
And the lawyers' compensation should never be based on the amount of the settlement.

WHBM

2nd Dec 2015, 09:52

Another senior lawyer told me (and a meeting) :

"Do not confuse The Law in a civil action with Justice. It is a sophisticated game played out between professionals on both sides, while the participants involved just look on as spectators".

MrSnuggles

2nd Dec 2015, 15:15

msbbarratt:

I think that it is highly inappropriate that a civil case is being brought in advance of the report being issued.

I think this might be due to the discrepancy in investigation times and times for someone to do the legal move. I saw a post that a passanger has 2 years to sue from the time the plane should have arrived. Considering that some investigations takes much more time than that (BA38 f.ex. took about four years) it MIGHT be that this makes the process backwards.