Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

BA038 passengers to sue boeing

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

BA038 passengers to sue boeing

Old 19th Nov 2009, 21:13
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Under the U.S. civil legal system, each party (plaintiff and defendant) is responsible for its own legal costs. Thus, if the defendant (Boeing) wins, they are still on the hook for paying their lawyers, and the plaintiffs' barristers can slink back to London (presumably on an Airbus) without being out-of-pocket for anything other than their own costs.
That is actually more reasonable in my view as each party must therefore weigh up the cost-vs-benefit of their argument in terms of litigation. As long as there is the option of punitave damages then that goes some way to even the (David/Goliath) disparity between the resources of a private individual and a large corporation within these rules.

However, you do imply that slinking back to London with a legal bill representing a speculative foreign exercise in US litigation is a trivial amount of money for a few hundred private and at best modestly affluent individuals, whereas that kind of legal bill is a major deal to a multi-billion dollar corporation. Why

Why also, would you presume they would 'slink' back to London on an Airbus? Is their case based around an assertion that Boeing is somehow less reliable than Airbus as a manufacturer
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2009, 21:39
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 463
1. One's threshold for pursuing a case is less (not zero, but less) if your downside is only to lose your investment, and not something more. While the cost of developing a case is certainly substantial, the cost of developing a case and paying for someone else's defense if you lose is even more substantial. In any event, in the U.S. legal system, plaintiffs' attorneys typically do not charge their clients upfront for their services. They are paid a contingent fee that may amount to 40% of any favorable verdict. And the clients pay nothing if they lose. Thus, it is the lawyers betting their own money, and they would like bet less if their payout liability was potentially greater.

2. My second comment about taking an Airbus back to London was supposed to be humerous. Or maybe these plaintiffs' lawyers really do believe what they are likely to be saying in court about the dangers posed by flying in a B777. Of course it is also possible that they believe Airbus transportation to be equally unsafe, and will instead opt for a return trip on the Queen Mary 2.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2009, 22:00
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
I see where you're coming from, but your grievance seems to be, not with the US legal system in principal, but with your system's propensity to award on the basis of contemporary 'emotional' discretion, and that discretion doesn't reflect, in your view, a reasonable balance somehow between the 'individually reasonable' and the 'constitutionally technical' aspect of your laws.

This is the benefit and the curse of a written constitution, you can amend it, but the amendments, by the time they're debated, implemented and ultimately accepted, don't keep up with the times. Equally, you feel you can always rely on the 'constitution' but then that must be flawed, if it wasn;t, why would there be a need to amend it?

(Think OJ, eg)

Regardless, trust me, you have the better cake on your side given the way things are going over here.

Welcome to the chip-on-shoulder-club

Last edited by BlooMoo; 19th Nov 2009 at 23:22.
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2009, 22:31
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
I was unaware anyone had been seriously injured.
If they have been,and have suffered financially as a result, they have little choice but to sue someone if their insurance won't pay out.
As for emotional distress - I would have thought the overwhelming emotion would be one of relief at being able to walk away from a sudden arrival of an airliner!
sharksandwich is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2009, 05:07
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seoul
Posts: 100
I wonder about motivation a bit.

Considering how so many passangers feel like some airlines have treated them like dirt, I wonder if a few more are more willing to sue as 'pay back' than in the past?

TME
TeachMe is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2009, 05:09
  #26 (permalink)  

Eight Gun Fighter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,127
"passengers"...sigh..... the things I do when girl goes away!
Rollingthunder is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2009, 09:39
  #27 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,546
As for emotional distress - I would have thought the overwhelming emotion would be one of relief at being able to walk away from a sudden arrival of an airliner!
Then you clearly have no understanding, experience or have ever witnessed someone badly affected by a dramatic event.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2009, 11:06
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,241
Originally Posted by M.Mouse View Post
Then you clearly have no understanding, experience or have ever witnessed someone badly affected by a dramatic event.
Nonsense. Many of us experience such events, or worse, in our lives, and do not act as wimps.
WHBM is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2009, 13:07
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Nonsense. Many of us experience such events, or worse, in our lives, and do not act as wimps.

Tough talking there....................
glad rag is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2009, 19:52
  #30 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,546
Nonsense. Many of us experience such events, or worse, in our lives, and do not act as wimps.
Some cope some do not, that does not make the emotional distress, depression or any other psychological difficulty any less real for those who do suffer following a traumatic event.

Wimps? Interesting and condescending choice of word.

The real difficulty is deciding who is genuine and who is not.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2009, 20:38
  #31 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Much of society is patterned after warfare. The Courtroom, the Boxing Ring, the Pitch, etc. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Whining is a poor defense, ask Mary.
 
Old 21st Nov 2009, 06:27
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Ah, the pure simplicity of a Class Action Lawsuit.
  • Lawyer finds a set of "victims".
  • All they do is sign on a dotted line and wait for a check.
  • Class Action lawyers make a nuisance of themselves with the target corporation. CEO down to executive floor janitors likely to get deposed.
  • CEO and other executives probably don't want too much of their private lives to become public so they decide to settle.
  • Lawyer keep 50%+ of the "takings"
  • "Victims" end up with a few thousand to tens of thousands. Not bad though for only having to sign on the dotted line.
Desert Diner is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2009, 07:12
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 79
Posts: 63
Cool

Ah, the pure simplicity of a Class Action Lawsuit.
Lawyer finds a set of "victims".
All they do is sign on a dotted line and wait for a check.
Class Action lawyers make a nuisance of themselves with the target corporation. CEO down to executive floor janitors likely to get deposed.
CEO and other executives probably don't want too much of their private lives to become public so they decide to settle.
Lawyer keep 50%+ of the "takings"
"Victims" end up with a few thousand to tens of thousands. Not bad though for only having to sign on the dotted line.

you really think so?
Is that really all there is?

Granted, its difficult to condense all of jurisprudence into a little paragraph, especially one designed to just provide singular humor and not educate.

..ah, to be free from nuance and to see the world only in shades of black!
tailstrikecharles is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2009, 07:18
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
..ah, to be free from nuance and to see the world only in shades of black!
Kindly enlighten us on the nuances of the lawsuit then.
Desert Diner is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2009, 07:32
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 79
Posts: 63
What, in particular, would you like to know?
Where to start?

Would it be a good starting point to assume that:

You have never sued,
never been sued
Never brought in as a witness
participated in a deposition

but have at least:

Gotten a sound biteable quote from Hannity, Limbaugh or Beck OR
Slept In A Holiday Inn Express Last Night? (tm)?

A good place to begin is to take a case in common lore, say "hot coffee burns old vagina lady" or "Ford Pinto Gas Tank explosions/fatalities" or even more topical " Boeing 737 rudder issues" see how those law suits evolved and developed and maybe from that form an opinion of your own?
tailstrikecharles is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2009, 08:18
  #36 (permalink)  

Hmmmyeah
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Leopardess.
Posts: 652
The hot coffee burns what case?
SyllogismCheck is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2009, 08:41
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Charlie,

How about making some assumptions about the case in hand: The 777 droping from the sky?

You seem to have cherry picked 3 to back you up. Are all the rest as clear cut. Are all class action suits that clear cut?

Gotten a sound biteable quote from Hannity, Limbaugh or Beck OR
Slept In A Holiday Inn Express Last Night? (tm)?
Desert Diner is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2009, 09:42
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 79
Posts: 63
Son, I am at the age when "picking cherries" is a phrase long behind me.
Those cases were not presented as 'class action cases' only as 'cases' for you to read, or apparently, not read.

The real question is ...in the short time you've had to reexamine your stated belief on "how the civil world works" do you still hold to that belief?

Are all the rest as clear cut. Are all class action suits that clear cut?
The answer to any question including "All" is almost certainly NO.

For example, are all your posts rubbish? NO (giving you the benefit of the doubt and not including the last few )

In a civil case, the verdict may not be a clear cut yes/no answer but one that apportions blame and responsibility.
i.e. The plaintiff should have watched where she was going, so she bore some responsibility, but the manager should have had that spill cleared up when he was first aware of it, instead of going out for a smoke.

google is your friend (even though they are the AntiChrist)
tailstrikecharles is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2009, 13:41
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 117
SyllogismCheck - Probably something like ...

Classic case of a meritless lawsuit. Mcdonald's can't keep people from spilling coffee on themselves and they have no duty to try. No one should need a warning that coffee is hot, and that you should not put a flimsy container full of hot liquid right between your legs.
found elsewhere on the www
Rightbase is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2009, 17:44
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 79
Posts: 63
The McDonalds case is one that I use in the classroom often as it illustrates a lot of points (basically any that you would like to make)

Personal responsibility vs your reasonable expectation of risk for non-compliance.
Courts (not just juries) have found for either side -however, a true comparison is not easy once you go into the details as the facts and yes, nuances of the cases differ slightly each time.

In the old lady's case, the issue here is not absolute by comparative negligence, where both parties are at reasonable contributors to the outcome.

The facts of the matter are that McDonalds (and others)
1. Reduced the hold temp of their hot beverage products
2. Invested in better cups, cup holders and lids (an independent investigation found that the perforation on the tear back lid on the cup was often disproportionately applied leading to an explosive rip hazard and splash risk of coffee or other scalding liquid to the FACE)

These mitigating behaviors understandably, alter the facts in future cases, making them easier to defend and to that end the plaintiffs did not prevail.


You will find as you do your OWN reading and develop your OWN opinions that will differ from the 'soundbite knowledge' so many other armchair legal enthusiasts spout
tailstrikecharles is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.