BA038 PAX to Sue?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman
ungrateful bastards the lot of them. Instead of giving thanks for their lives, they want to sue. Sometimes I wonder if some people are worth saving
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am both gob smacked and disgusted.
Negligence has not been established. Nobody forced them onto the aircraft and anybody who willingly gets onto an aircraft must surely accept that there is a risk of death or serious injury. There is such a thing as bad luck. Any litigation is pure opportunism, taking advantage of the misfortune of others, be it BA, Boeing, RR or who ever. And the effect will be... To put up ticket prices for everybody else so that the cost can be covered. Utter selfishness.
Something unfortunate happens, they are lucky enough to walk away wth thier lives and they see it as an opportunity to squeeze money out of somebody. "Money, that tainted thing..."
.4
Negligence has not been established. Nobody forced them onto the aircraft and anybody who willingly gets onto an aircraft must surely accept that there is a risk of death or serious injury. There is such a thing as bad luck. Any litigation is pure opportunism, taking advantage of the misfortune of others, be it BA, Boeing, RR or who ever. And the effect will be... To put up ticket prices for everybody else so that the cost can be covered. Utter selfishness.
Something unfortunate happens, they are lucky enough to walk away wth thier lives and they see it as an opportunity to squeeze money out of somebody. "Money, that tainted thing..."
.4
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this follows the standard pattern then BA, Boeing and Rolls Royce will be named in any action, possibly the airport authority as well. Boeing were named in the Teneriffe, (Pan Am/KLM), accident despite it being obvious they had no part in causing it and immediately put $5million in the kitty as that was cheaper than defending themselves, (Boeing's Product Liability Insurance cover cost them $50 million p.a. in 1983 so you can guess what it costs today).
Remember that in the USA any award is based on the 'deepest pockets' theory so if found liable for say 20% of the blame you could finish up paying 80% of the award if you are deemed the richest defendant, well that is how it used to be, may have changed?
Remember that in the USA any award is based on the 'deepest pockets' theory so if found liable for say 20% of the blame you could finish up paying 80% of the award if you are deemed the richest defendant, well that is how it used to be, may have changed?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GXER
You're looking at it the wrong way. Consider this. Every time a pax buys a ticket for a flight, he/she is asking said company to perform an unnatural activities (defying gravity!) and deliver him to a destination. This is something that would not be possible if not for the company's proficiency in performing said 'unnatural activity'. Why then, should these passengers have any right to complain when, on the one in a god knows how many million chance, something goes disastrously wrong, and the company is STILL able to deliver them safely to their destination.
The pax is paying for the company's safety, training, and skill in doing a task of which he knows nothing and trusts blindly in their competence. He should not complain when that competence is proved irrefutably sound.
In short: cracking job by the crew - people should not seek to undo what was in fact a remarkable piece of skill which reflected brilliantly not only on the crew but on the company, BA, which trained them.
ETC
You're looking at it the wrong way. Consider this. Every time a pax buys a ticket for a flight, he/she is asking said company to perform an unnatural activities (defying gravity!) and deliver him to a destination. This is something that would not be possible if not for the company's proficiency in performing said 'unnatural activity'. Why then, should these passengers have any right to complain when, on the one in a god knows how many million chance, something goes disastrously wrong, and the company is STILL able to deliver them safely to their destination.
The pax is paying for the company's safety, training, and skill in doing a task of which he knows nothing and trusts blindly in their competence. He should not complain when that competence is proved irrefutably sound.
In short: cracking job by the crew - people should not seek to undo what was in fact a remarkable piece of skill which reflected brilliantly not only on the crew but on the company, BA, which trained them.
ETC
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
120.4
I am a regular SLF, when I get on a plane I expect that the Manufacturer/Airline/Engine Manufacturer/Airport Personnel will have done everything in their power to ensure a safe flight.
You are correct that negligence has not been established. But then no cause has been established only preliminary findings. So you cannot condemn passengers simply for exploring the possibilities if negligence was proved.
Sadly in this litigeous world there will always be one or more passangers who decide to resort to law.
Once that happens are others going to be magnanimous enough to say "I know you are paying passengers £x but I don't think it is right so you don't need to pay me"?
I would be very surprised.
One person who obviously deserves some compensation is the passenger who I gather had a multiple leg fracture from the undercarriage leg penetrating the cabin.
I am a regular SLF, when I get on a plane I expect that the Manufacturer/Airline/Engine Manufacturer/Airport Personnel will have done everything in their power to ensure a safe flight.
You are correct that negligence has not been established. But then no cause has been established only preliminary findings. So you cannot condemn passengers simply for exploring the possibilities if negligence was proved.
Sadly in this litigeous world there will always be one or more passangers who decide to resort to law.
Once that happens are others going to be magnanimous enough to say "I know you are paying passengers £x but I don't think it is right so you don't need to pay me"?
I would be very surprised.
One person who obviously deserves some compensation is the passenger who I gather had a multiple leg fracture from the undercarriage leg penetrating the cabin.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I May Sue Too
OK - I admit I wasn't hurt in the crash
And - alright I wasn't actually on the plane,
And, fair enough, I was 200 miles from Heathrow that particular day - but I sure as hell was traumatised by seeing the stills and the tv news coverage and reading all the pages of details and posts here on PPRUNE.
All in all it was a very upsetting experience. Next day there was more tv coverage - which brought everything back to me and made me re-live the original horrific events. My lawyer says only a realistic compensation settlement is going to help me sleep easily again and it'll all be on a "no win-no fee" basis.
And - alright I wasn't actually on the plane,
And, fair enough, I was 200 miles from Heathrow that particular day - but I sure as hell was traumatised by seeing the stills and the tv news coverage and reading all the pages of details and posts here on PPRUNE.
All in all it was a very upsetting experience. Next day there was more tv coverage - which brought everything back to me and made me re-live the original horrific events. My lawyer says only a realistic compensation settlement is going to help me sleep easily again and it'll all be on a "no win-no fee" basis.
Last edited by sandbank; 4th Feb 2008 at 22:45.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: india
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lets be fair
1. i am a pilot with a major airline
2.it looks like the crew did a fabulous job saving pax.
that said...... pax pay to be SAFELY flown A to B. they were not . they are entitled to compensation from someone . who? let the aaib determine cause.lets not act like we do pax a favour by letting them fly. its a contract and they are the reason we all have a job.
2.it looks like the crew did a fabulous job saving pax.
that said...... pax pay to be SAFELY flown A to B. they were not . they are entitled to compensation from someone . who? let the aaib determine cause.lets not act like we do pax a favour by letting them fly. its a contract and they are the reason we all have a job.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't remember the finer detail but is the airline's liability not limited under the Warsaw convention as long as the airline had taken all necessary measures to avoid the incident? If this is the case there may be some disappointed claimants out there!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's appalling, from what I've read here and elsewhere it sounds like the airport staff/BA staff on the ground could have handled certain things like how people would get home better, but other than that..wow, these people should be incredibly grateful!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from their website.
Crash landing passengers may seek compensation
4th February 2008
Sally Moore, head of the accidents and disasters department at law firm Leigh Day & Co says that some passengers who were evacuated from a British Airways plane that crash-landed at Heathrow airport in January 2008 may be able to make a personal injury claim.
Next to this article on their website is a picture of a British Airways tailfin!!
Vultures .
Crash landing passengers may seek compensation
4th February 2008
Sally Moore, head of the accidents and disasters department at law firm Leigh Day & Co says that some passengers who were evacuated from a British Airways plane that crash-landed at Heathrow airport in January 2008 may be able to make a personal injury claim.
Next to this article on their website is a picture of a British Airways tailfin!!
Vultures .
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well in that case....
Let's all sue the BBC etc for the stress caused by watching it on the TV.
What a load of utter selfishness.
He who takes up the sword will die by it. Anybody wo goes down this road cannot complain if they are themselves sued should they make a mistake during their life. Seeking advantage from another's misfortune when you have walked away without a scratch is wicked. These days people seem to look for any opportunity to exact a price. That is evil.
.4
Let's all sue the BBC etc for the stress caused by watching it on the TV.
What a load of utter selfishness.
He who takes up the sword will die by it. Anybody wo goes down this road cannot complain if they are themselves sued should they make a mistake during their life. Seeking advantage from another's misfortune when you have walked away without a scratch is wicked. These days people seem to look for any opportunity to exact a price. That is evil.
.4
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire, England
Age: 57
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes, the good old days
It seems to me the topic of litigation is being driven by the lawyers, not the passengers, so some lawyer-bashing is in order.
Yes and no. Personally I love the stiff upper lip, and deploy it through choice. But the good old days? Hmm, when we fed nerve gas to volunteers at Porton Down and hushed it up, or when children killed themselves every day in unsafe playgrounds and we did nothing about it? For sure, Britain needed a wake up call with our 'stiff upper lip'. We should remember this when we go off venting about "PC" nonsense.
Everything suggests to me that the flight deck did a great job, but as far as I can see, negligence has not yet been excluded. Maybe we should be a bit more circumspect here until the truth finally emerges. I agree broadly speaking that in daily life some discomfort is to be taken on the chin, but I don't believe surviving a plane crash is necessarily trivial.
In the good old days in Britain, the pax would all have been give a hot cuppa and a fancy biscuit from a mobile tea truck and every one would have been happy
Everything suggests to me that the flight deck did a great job, but as far as I can see, negligence has not yet been excluded. Maybe we should be a bit more circumspect here until the truth finally emerges. I agree broadly speaking that in daily life some discomfort is to be taken on the chin, but I don't believe surviving a plane crash is necessarily trivial.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking pilot
1. i am a pilot with a major airline
2.it looks like the crew did a fabulous job saving pax.
that said...... pax pay to be SAFELY flown A to B. they were not . they are entitled to compensation from someone . who? let the aaib determine cause.lets not act like we do pax a favour by letting them fly. its a contract and they are the reason we all have a job.
Why are they ENTITLED to compensation?
Am I ENTITLED to compensation when stuck on a motorway because someone had had an accident?
Am I ENTITLED to compensation when I trip over a paving stone that has been moved by illegal parking on the pavement?
The compensation culture due almost totally to the 'no win, no fee' vultures costs EVERY UK citizen thousands of pounds in insurance, tax, council tax etc.
Yes, if there is proven negligence (something that was known, forseen and deliberately ignored)
But there are such things as 'accidents' and every passenger knowingly took a risk by getting onto that flight. Just because something went wrong (and until the AAIB reports I keep an open mind) does not ENTITLE the passengers to compensation.
GH
1. i am a pilot with a major airline
2.it looks like the crew did a fabulous job saving pax.
that said...... pax pay to be SAFELY flown A to B. they were not . they are entitled to compensation from someone . who? let the aaib determine cause.lets not act like we do pax a favour by letting them fly. its a contract and they are the reason we all have a job.
Why are they ENTITLED to compensation?
Am I ENTITLED to compensation when stuck on a motorway because someone had had an accident?
Am I ENTITLED to compensation when I trip over a paving stone that has been moved by illegal parking on the pavement?
The compensation culture due almost totally to the 'no win, no fee' vultures costs EVERY UK citizen thousands of pounds in insurance, tax, council tax etc.
Yes, if there is proven negligence (something that was known, forseen and deliberately ignored)
But there are such things as 'accidents' and every passenger knowingly took a risk by getting onto that flight. Just because something went wrong (and until the AAIB reports I keep an open mind) does not ENTITLE the passengers to compensation.
GH
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: faraway
Age: 67
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
technically they did get from A to B safely. The aircraft was still intact . They all walked away from the crash! I can guarantee that if that plane hit the runway instead of the grass they would all have been killed as the plane would have exploded on impact!
These people have no gratitude for their lives. Do you think that the crew will be able to sue????? NO is the answer. They have to carry on with their everyday lives just like that pax on the plane.
Get a grip people
What is money going to solve??? How is that going to make things better???? You have no injuries that have screwed up your lives, so why do you need the money???
These people have no gratitude for their lives. Do you think that the crew will be able to sue????? NO is the answer. They have to carry on with their everyday lives just like that pax on the plane.
Get a grip people
What is money going to solve??? How is that going to make things better???? You have no injuries that have screwed up your lives, so why do you need the money???
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the passengers were injured - one had multiple leg fractures. That person will be unable to work for several months and may lose their job as a result - he/she will certainly lose a great deal of wages. They undoubtedly have mortgage/rent to pay and if they are unable to work may lose their home. They are likely to have problems with the injuries for many years to come, possibly for life. These are significant losses and I don't see any reason why they should not seek compensation for them. I have no doubt that given the choice of the money or not having had the accident they would choose not to have had the accident.
I don't buy the argument that because they chose to travel by air they must accept the consequences. We all travel by car - does this arguement mean that we should accept the negligant driving of another driver even if he causes us an accident because we accepted the risk?
Personally I don't think the 'no-win, no-fee' culture has anything to do with it. If the lawyer thinks that they are at risk of not being paid for taking on a risky case, then chances are they won't take the case on. Ever seen a lawyer who doesn't mind whether they get paid or not?
I don't buy the argument that because they chose to travel by air they must accept the consequences. We all travel by car - does this arguement mean that we should accept the negligant driving of another driver even if he causes us an accident because we accepted the risk?
Personally I don't think the 'no-win, no-fee' culture has anything to do with it. If the lawyer thinks that they are at risk of not being paid for taking on a risky case, then chances are they won't take the case on. Ever seen a lawyer who doesn't mind whether they get paid or not?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not often I defend Lawyers but ...
If you read everything that is on the leigh Day and Co website about this, it seems fairly clear to me that this clearly puts considerable doubt on the ability of the passengers to sue. If the claim is for less than £80k the Montreal Convention applies and it's on a 'no fault required' basis, but anything over that requires someone to be at fault. Given that all bar one of the passengers had minor injuries, and, again as stated by Sally Moore at the link above, it is unlikely that psychological injuries are covered by the Convention and it is also unlikely that the extent of the psychological trauma, especially when BA is mitigating by offering long term support, will bring the compensation estimate above the £80k. This seems to be fair and realistic advice to me.
Ll
If you read everything that is on the leigh Day and Co website about this, it seems fairly clear to me that this clearly puts considerable doubt on the ability of the passengers to sue. If the claim is for less than £80k the Montreal Convention applies and it's on a 'no fault required' basis, but anything over that requires someone to be at fault. Given that all bar one of the passengers had minor injuries, and, again as stated by Sally Moore at the link above, it is unlikely that psychological injuries are covered by the Convention and it is also unlikely that the extent of the psychological trauma, especially when BA is mitigating by offering long term support, will bring the compensation estimate above the £80k. This seems to be fair and realistic advice to me.
Ll