BA038 PAX to Sue?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newcastle
Age: 41
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxing All Over The World
from that BBC report:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UJ
Age: 42
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Passanger Sues BA after BA777 LHR Crash
(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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: evicted
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Excellent comment piece in the Torygraph on the flight from a pax perspective entitled:
My escape from BA038 was damn fun
My escape from BA038 was damn fun
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
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
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
PositiveRate876
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?i...ext_id=1320279
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.
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?i...ext_id=1320279
Litigated claims have gone down, not up, in the years since no-win no-fee was introduced.
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!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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.'
The do have that ability - its called a wasted costs order. Its used very rarely - perhaps because the cases that go to court aren't as frivolous as you would think.
The do have that ability - its called a wasted costs order. Its used very rarely - perhaps because the cases that go to court aren't as frivolous as you would think.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: heathrow
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should BA pay compensation? What basis has anyone that BA are to blame?
I think you will find they are only legally obligated if it appears they are in anyway responsible/liable.
As for comments that Boeing should make aircraft heavier.....wasn't it Jim Davidson (he of chalky/nick nick fame) who suggested the aircraft should be made of the same stuff as the black box!! At least he'll acknowedge that was for a comedy routine!
I think you will find they are only legally obligated if it appears they are in anyway responsible/liable.
As for comments that Boeing should make aircraft heavier.....wasn't it Jim Davidson (he of chalky/nick nick fame) who suggested the aircraft should be made of the same stuff as the black box!! At least he'll acknowedge that was for a comedy routine!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The people who suffered whiplash are entitled to compensation as well, and IMHO it's possible that some of this could have been averted if BA had looked after the SLF better following the incident.
