107 passengers join class-action suit against Air France
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: still in bed
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
107 passengers join class-action suit against Air France
"At least 107 passengers have joined a class-action suit against Air France, Toronto airport authorities, the control tower staff, Airbus, Goodrich, which built the jet's escape chutes, and the two pilots, seeking damages of more than $150-million."
After they have been evacuated to safety? how much damage they will ask compensation if those 107 where dead?
After they have been evacuated to safety? how much damage they will ask compensation if those 107 where dead?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick way to make a few bucks of you ask me! Rather shameless if you ask me. However one must also consider the fact that many of the passengers would have lost some personal property (except maybe the nob end who stopped to take out his phone/camera and start taking pictures) although I doubt this would have ever amounted to $150m+!
For the life of me I cannot figure out why Goodrich are being involved. Everyone escaped safely, the chutes either did not inflate because the doors were jammed/not opened because of outside hazards or wreckage from the site caused them to burst. Plus in the industry we are always told to expect a 25% slide failure!
Some have said that it is cheaper for an airline to have everyone die in a crash then it is to have survivors. I think this could be a perfect example of that.
For the life of me I cannot figure out why Goodrich are being involved. Everyone escaped safely, the chutes either did not inflate because the doors were jammed/not opened because of outside hazards or wreckage from the site caused them to burst. Plus in the industry we are always told to expect a 25% slide failure!
Some have said that it is cheaper for an airline to have everyone die in a crash then it is to have survivors. I think this could be a perfect example of that.
Paxing All Over The World
Goodrich are being swept up in this, because the lawyers want to ensure they get their money. If the airport and tower staff get out from under (probably) and Goodrich prove they had fulfilled all expectations and maintenance was the responsibility of 'X', then you still have Airbus and Air France to work on.
With any luck (for the lawyers) there will be jury involved who will want to see someone take the rap for this. If three or more 'get away' then those left standing are more likely to be left writing the cheques.
It's just money talking.
With any luck (for the lawyers) there will be jury involved who will want to see someone take the rap for this. If three or more 'get away' then those left standing are more likely to be left writing the cheques.
It's just money talking.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: u.s.
Age: 44
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zagorfly and apaddinuk, what difference does it make whether there are survivors or not? The airline messes up in a way that is life-threatening but they shouldn't be held responsible?
As we all know lawsuits like this are factored into a company's calculations of the cost of safety. The more they have to pay when they screw up in a life-threatening way (and people find out about it), the more incentive they have to put more money into preventive measures and safety.
As we all know lawsuits like this are factored into a company's calculations of the cost of safety. The more they have to pay when they screw up in a life-threatening way (and people find out about it), the more incentive they have to put more money into preventive measures and safety.
The A340 is a difficult aircraft for lawyers because so little of it comes from the US. But they seem to have found something.
"Do not confuse The Law with Justice. It is an expensive game played between professionals with claimant and defendent standing by as chance spectators." was a quote to me from a senior at a City of London law firm. He was right, of course.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM,
The last line is probably very true. However including a US company in the action does not ensure the case will get into the US courts or if it did to remain there for very long see Piper V Reyno (454 US 235 1981)
for the reason why. For further background see Gulf oil corp v Gilbert (330 US 501 1947).
The accident occurred to a French company on Canadian territory and likely involved mainly nationals of those countries. Although one party to the suit is a US company, it likely conducts business in the other jurisdicitions (France and Canada) and even if it doesn't it will almost certainly pledge to co-operate with any other jurisdiction to ensure that a forum non conveniens motion keeps the primary action away from the US courts.
The last line is probably very true. However including a US company in the action does not ensure the case will get into the US courts or if it did to remain there for very long see Piper V Reyno (454 US 235 1981)
for the reason why. For further background see Gulf oil corp v Gilbert (330 US 501 1947).
The accident occurred to a French company on Canadian territory and likely involved mainly nationals of those countries. Although one party to the suit is a US company, it likely conducts business in the other jurisdicitions (France and Canada) and even if it doesn't it will almost certainly pledge to co-operate with any other jurisdiction to ensure that a forum non conveniens motion keeps the primary action away from the US courts.
