Hudson survivors may Sue US Airways
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish some of you would read about PTSD before you make your posts!
The simplest google search will give you this:
Posttraumatic stress disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'll go out on a limb and say that ALL these pax and crew are Grateful to be alive. But that has NOTHING to do with any PTSD that may arise from this event.
To one individual, PTSD can be debilitating to the point where they can't leave their own home. Another individual who experienced the same event may have no effects at all.
People who say things like:
have NO IDEA what they're talking about. Individuals MAY require YEARS of counselling and/or other psychiatric help. They MAY find that they cannot perform their job (you know, what brings in the money to buy food and all that). How is $5000.00 going to cover that?
Or this:
From personal experience, I can guarantee that when you are thinking "OMG! I AM GOING TO DIE" every second is an eternity! Who are you to say that there wont be any long term damage? 
Lastly, spare a thought for the Flight crew and CC who may be reading this! Some of the comments on this thread don't help!
DIVOSH!
The simplest google search will give you this:
Posttraumatic stress disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'll go out on a limb and say that ALL these pax and crew are Grateful to be alive. But that has NOTHING to do with any PTSD that may arise from this event.
To one individual, PTSD can be debilitating to the point where they can't leave their own home. Another individual who experienced the same event may have no effects at all.
People who say things like:
if they are suffering from PTSD, they should take the $5000 cheque US airways have provided and spend it on councelling...
Or this:
(the flight would have been only 3 or 4 mins long) but is that enough to cause long term damage?
Lastly, spare a thought for the Flight crew and CC who may be reading this! Some of the comments on this thread don't help!
DIVOSH!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most of us are aware of the effects of PTSD. However US air did not set out with the intention the passengers and crew should suffer from this disorder. They didn't want the aircraft to crash anymore than the crew and passengers on that flight. So why lash out at the airline and try and sue them? I cant see any intent there whatsoever.
Now if you can sue OBL for 911 then I would have some sought of respect for the US legal system. But they wont because he is not a soft target, is he.
This litigation nonsense is so far out of control in the US, Doctors on flights that plan to be in US airspace from abroad, are reluctant to put "Dr" on their ticket in case they are called upon to deal with a medical emergency. If they screw up a medical emergency, on board in US airspace, they do not look forward to possible/probable litigation from the person whose life possibly, the doctor is trying to save. You can thank the fear of litigation for that. Putting lives at risk and not trying to save them, thanks to the good 'ol U S of A. God help America!
Is this an acceptable way for loving human beings to behave?
Now if you can sue OBL for 911 then I would have some sought of respect for the US legal system. But they wont because he is not a soft target, is he.
This litigation nonsense is so far out of control in the US, Doctors on flights that plan to be in US airspace from abroad, are reluctant to put "Dr" on their ticket in case they are called upon to deal with a medical emergency. If they screw up a medical emergency, on board in US airspace, they do not look forward to possible/probable litigation from the person whose life possibly, the doctor is trying to save. You can thank the fear of litigation for that. Putting lives at risk and not trying to save them, thanks to the good 'ol U S of A. God help America!
Is this an acceptable way for loving human beings to behave?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Age: 45
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judges should have better sense than to award
With all due respect to the people who feel the need to sue, PTSD can be difficult to treat. But Like anything, recover depends on the person and their willingness to help themselves overcome the incident causing the reaction. Some people probably will need ongoing treatment but others will use PTSD as a way of "NOT BEING ABLE TO WORK EVER AGAIN".
A member of my family suffered from PTSD and I understand it’s not easy. BUT, those who have a get on with it attitude are usually the ones who recover after some counselling and those who seek continued counselling sometimes just want to relive the experience over and over and over again thus preventing themselves from moving on!
Just a note - here in Ireland suing is nearly as bad as the states. Only this week there was a case in the High Court where Lithuanian guy tried suing a midwife for €38,000! Reason: She asked him to turn his camcorder off and stop filming the birth of his baby for a few minutes. Reason she asked him to turn it off: she needed to perform emergency suction on the new born's trachea because the infant was not breathing. Thankfully the infant survived and the case thrown out of court! (The law firm should have had better sense than to take such a case. He was even landed with having to pay all the legal costs for the Midwife and the cost of the court sitting and rightly so)
4 years ago a nurse on her way to work stopped at road side accident in which a man had basically died at the scene. She performed CPR on him. She revived him and after hospital treatment he survived. He went on to sue the nurse who administered CPR which save his life on the road side. Reason: he accused her of cracking one his ribs. The lady only brought him back to life. An ungrateful ass**le like him didn't deserve her kindness or efforts!
Some people are just money grabbers and get rich quick opportunists! Anyone who wants to try making a quick dollar out of this should be ashamed of themselves and what goes around comes around. Faith may not be so kind to them the next time they are looking death in the face! Karma!
I do believe that people should be helped towards their medical expenses if they can't afford it but at the end of the day it was the birds fault and insurance companies & airlines employ some pretty smart legal EAGLES themselves ! ! ! ACT OF GOD - don't know of any Insurance Company or Airline to cover that ! ! !
On the other hand if this was a ACT OF MAN as in something to do with engineering or human error then that is a different flock of birds ! ! !
A member of my family suffered from PTSD and I understand it’s not easy. BUT, those who have a get on with it attitude are usually the ones who recover after some counselling and those who seek continued counselling sometimes just want to relive the experience over and over and over again thus preventing themselves from moving on!
Just a note - here in Ireland suing is nearly as bad as the states. Only this week there was a case in the High Court where Lithuanian guy tried suing a midwife for €38,000! Reason: She asked him to turn his camcorder off and stop filming the birth of his baby for a few minutes. Reason she asked him to turn it off: she needed to perform emergency suction on the new born's trachea because the infant was not breathing. Thankfully the infant survived and the case thrown out of court! (The law firm should have had better sense than to take such a case. He was even landed with having to pay all the legal costs for the Midwife and the cost of the court sitting and rightly so)
4 years ago a nurse on her way to work stopped at road side accident in which a man had basically died at the scene. She performed CPR on him. She revived him and after hospital treatment he survived. He went on to sue the nurse who administered CPR which save his life on the road side. Reason: he accused her of cracking one his ribs. The lady only brought him back to life. An ungrateful ass**le like him didn't deserve her kindness or efforts!
Some people are just money grabbers and get rich quick opportunists! Anyone who wants to try making a quick dollar out of this should be ashamed of themselves and what goes around comes around. Faith may not be so kind to them the next time they are looking death in the face! Karma!
I do believe that people should be helped towards their medical expenses if they can't afford it but at the end of the day it was the birds fault and insurance companies & airlines employ some pretty smart legal EAGLES themselves ! ! ! ACT OF GOD - don't know of any Insurance Company or Airline to cover that ! ! !
On the other hand if this was a ACT OF MAN as in something to do with engineering or human error then that is a different flock of birds ! ! !
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some people get too worked up and emotional over this issue. The airline has insurance coverage, and that coverage is in part to protect the company from third party claims. If individuals or groups are going to make third party claims, they would need to initiate a suit. It really is as simple as that.
Certainly not all the individuals will necessarily have a claim. The airline may mitigate or even settle those claims as it sees fit. It may be a condition of their insurance coverage that they are restricted in the negotiation or settlement it would otherwise choose to make. Any claims that are made may be successful, partially succesful, fail, be dismissed or abandoned. There is no surity in any of this, and even those claimants that do pursue their claims might spend many years doing so before the claim is eventually decided one way or the other.
This is simply a process. You might not like it, but it is. It is probably a very long process and that is why the initiation and intention to file takes place as early as possible.
If you will excuse the pun, the "flock of birds" angle is a bit of a "red herring." It may be nobodies fault when a Deer runs out in front of a car, or a tree falls on a bus. However if those risks are covered by an insurance policy, then any damage is likely covered. You can be reasonably sure the airline will recover the value of the hull, and probably the business losses associated from the loss of the hull. Likewise third parties can exercise their claims against the policy as well, although that would normally require a claim against the carrier who pass it on to their insurer. This is rather like a passenger in your car suing you for any damage they might suffer as result of a crash. In reality it all gets passed to the insurer by you. However they cannot claim directly against your policy (unless there are special circumstances) because they have no contract with the insurance company, only you the driver has that, and hence that is the process. It doesn't sound very friendly or nice, but that is how the process has to take place.
Too many "Daily Mail" indignants getting worked up over this issue in my opinion.
Certainly not all the individuals will necessarily have a claim. The airline may mitigate or even settle those claims as it sees fit. It may be a condition of their insurance coverage that they are restricted in the negotiation or settlement it would otherwise choose to make. Any claims that are made may be successful, partially succesful, fail, be dismissed or abandoned. There is no surity in any of this, and even those claimants that do pursue their claims might spend many years doing so before the claim is eventually decided one way or the other.
This is simply a process. You might not like it, but it is. It is probably a very long process and that is why the initiation and intention to file takes place as early as possible.
If you will excuse the pun, the "flock of birds" angle is a bit of a "red herring." It may be nobodies fault when a Deer runs out in front of a car, or a tree falls on a bus. However if those risks are covered by an insurance policy, then any damage is likely covered. You can be reasonably sure the airline will recover the value of the hull, and probably the business losses associated from the loss of the hull. Likewise third parties can exercise their claims against the policy as well, although that would normally require a claim against the carrier who pass it on to their insurer. This is rather like a passenger in your car suing you for any damage they might suffer as result of a crash. In reality it all gets passed to the insurer by you. However they cannot claim directly against your policy (unless there are special circumstances) because they have no contract with the insurance company, only you the driver has that, and hence that is the process. It doesn't sound very friendly or nice, but that is how the process has to take place.
Too many "Daily Mail" indignants getting worked up over this issue in my opinion.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Divosh writes
Any PTSD which may arise from this event has NOTHING to do with USAir's conduct, policies, or actions.
Except perhaps the fact there was an extremely experienced, skilled flight crew which made the best choice possible, landing with enough of the aircraft left so that cabin crew could conduct a safe evacuation.
Suing USAir for this incident makes about as much sense as suing Canada because Canadian Geese were involved in the birdstrike.
If they're grateful to be alive, then they shouldn't consider suing the operation which saved their butts in a situation which could have presented itself to any aircraft departing that day.
... and ...
Regardless of the impact of the stress on any individual, at some point personal ethics should play a role.
USAir didn't do anything to encourage the geese to fly into the path of the aircraft. In fact, the pilot flying took extremely good care of the people in the seats behind him, and made sound decisions - which is the primary reason there are survivors who are alive and well enough to consider suing.
That alone should be enough to see any lawsuits quickly dismissed, and I personally hope the attorneys responsible for filing run into a judge who has the nads to slap a contempt charge on them for filing an utterly frivolous case.
Simply being somewhere when something bad happens doesn't give one the moral right to sue whomever was the last to "handle" them.
This smells like something instigated by the sort of law firms who advertise on late-night television.
I'll go out on a limb and say that ALL these pax and crew are Grateful to be alive. But that has NOTHING to do with any PTSD that may arise from this event.
Except perhaps the fact there was an extremely experienced, skilled flight crew which made the best choice possible, landing with enough of the aircraft left so that cabin crew could conduct a safe evacuation.
Suing USAir for this incident makes about as much sense as suing Canada because Canadian Geese were involved in the birdstrike.
If they're grateful to be alive, then they shouldn't consider suing the operation which saved their butts in a situation which could have presented itself to any aircraft departing that day.
... and ...
To one individual, PTSD can be debilitating to the point where they can't leave their own home. Another individual who experienced the same event may have no effects at all.
USAir didn't do anything to encourage the geese to fly into the path of the aircraft. In fact, the pilot flying took extremely good care of the people in the seats behind him, and made sound decisions - which is the primary reason there are survivors who are alive and well enough to consider suing.
That alone should be enough to see any lawsuits quickly dismissed, and I personally hope the attorneys responsible for filing run into a judge who has the nads to slap a contempt charge on them for filing an utterly frivolous case.
Simply being somewhere when something bad happens doesn't give one the moral right to sue whomever was the last to "handle" them.
This smells like something instigated by the sort of law firms who advertise on late-night television.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> Individuals MAY require YEARS of counselling and/or other psychiatric help.
> They MAY find that they cannot perform their job (you know, what brings
> in the money to buy food and all that). How is $5000.00 going to cover
> that?
It won't but why should the airline pay for that rather than the individuals own insurance? From this distance it's quite hard to see where the Airline might be liable. Presumably they would have to show that the incident wasn't handled correctly and that that contributed.
> They MAY find that they cannot perform their job (you know, what brings
> in the money to buy food and all that). How is $5000.00 going to cover
> that?
It won't but why should the airline pay for that rather than the individuals own insurance? From this distance it's quite hard to see where the Airline might be liable. Presumably they would have to show that the incident wasn't handled correctly and that that contributed.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline won't, that is the point. It is the airlines insurers that will either settle or defend any third party claim for damages. If the passenger had been travelling in your car and a Canada Goose flew through the windshield and caused them injury, they would be within their rights to sue you for recovery. Your insurance company would then be notified of the claim and should take over the matter. If the claim is successful by way of negotiation or judgement the insurance company will pay it (subject to excess). Similarly if the Goose causes $2000 worth of damage to your car, and you are comprehensively insured, you will also make a direct claim yourself, that in all likelyhood will be settled.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to add that insurers sometimes try to recover their outlay.
So, you may make a claim on your own insurance and the your insurer decides to sue to try to recover.
A condition of accepting your payout is that you will allow the insurance company to sue on your behalf.
So although the 'passengers' may be issuing writs, it could be the insurance companies who are doing it.
However, this is purely speculation and that is why I have refrained from commenting on the rights and wrongs of any actions, I don't know enough to have a sensible opinion and neither does any one else on this thread.
So, you may make a claim on your own insurance and the your insurer decides to sue to try to recover.
A condition of accepting your payout is that you will allow the insurance company to sue on your behalf.
So although the 'passengers' may be issuing writs, it could be the insurance companies who are doing it.
However, this is purely speculation and that is why I have refrained from commenting on the rights and wrongs of any actions, I don't know enough to have a sensible opinion and neither does any one else on this thread.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. However the majority on this thread do seem to have an idea what is right and what is wrong.
We all seem to be forgetting one very important point here. The law is not about justice. If you think it is, then think again.
We all seem to be forgetting one very important point here. The law is not about justice. If you think it is, then think again.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarificaton
When I posted yesterday, I was NOT making any comments on the ethics of any possible litigation.
I posted because I was concerned with some of the callous and ignorant remarks made in relation to PTSD. (so to posters like Rottenray, please don't quote me out of context).
Comments such as:
are pretty p1ss poor, and highlight the ignorance and lack of compassion of the poster, IMHO.
Cwatters, I might have not expressed myself well with my
It was not meant to mean that I supported any litigation. It was in response to a post by aviators_anonymous who (I thought) implied that PTSD was simple, quick and cheap to treat.
DIVOSH!
I posted because I was concerned with some of the callous and ignorant remarks made in relation to PTSD. (so to posters like Rottenray, please don't quote me out of context).
Comments such as:
The fact they are still able to spend time on this earth and be able to see their family and friends to help them through the "trauma" should compensation enough!
(the flight would have been only 3 or 4 mins long) but is that enough to cause long term damage? If so, eat a bag of cement and harden up.
Ungrateful bastards
Cwatters, I might have not expressed myself well with my
How is $5000.00 going to cover that?
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greed really is a nasty thing.
"Greed is all right, by the way. I want you to know that. I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself."
In recent times the fruits of this mantra have started to rot on the vine. Look at the global financial system, including most of the worlds largest financial institutions. Look at the worlds largest Insurance company AIG and many others. Were they not guilty of the most obscene greed?
It is hard to equate how potentially damaged survivors of an accident and their possible future claims can be enveloped in the same gift wrap as some of these instutions, by those who would seek to portray the latter as innocent victims of circumstance. The other way around surely ?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can an Airline be responsible for a birdstrike?
Why would anyone start an airline business if it was also responsible to ensure birds filed flight plans and had TCAS turned on? This is nothing but opportunistic greed. Lets sue everyone and then wonder why insurance premiums go up as well as airline tickets.
Has any of these selfish lawyers ever wondered if it was an act of god or just an accident that nobody wanted to happen?
Unfortunately these disgusting lawsuits happen outside of the USA now too.
Probably same Di*khead lawyers who invented sueing parents!
Stop the world- I want to get off!!!
Has any of these selfish lawyers ever wondered if it was an act of god or just an accident that nobody wanted to happen?
Unfortunately these disgusting lawsuits happen outside of the USA now too.
Probably same Di*khead lawyers who invented sueing parents!
Stop the world- I want to get off!!!
Paxing All Over The World
For those that have not seen PTSD at first or second hand, then reactions can be as stereotyped as people who say that a person with depression should 'just pull themselves together'. If the state of a person's mind is altered, then they will make decisions that seem strange to some people. I agree that the lawyers are on the gravy train but they too are just trying to make a living and doing so in a way which their society approves of.
My father was in a bad aircraft crash when he was 21. He got pulled out of the buring wreckage and had PTSD all of his life. The problem being that the aircraft was an RAF Mosquito that crashed on take off in 1945 when an engine caught fire - and you don't want to be in a wooden aircraft fully fuelled and gunned up for night fighter operations with an engine fire. So there was no counselling and he just toughed it out. It wasn't nice and these days there would be some sort of compensation.
He died at the age of 78 and had the usual nightmare just the week before he died. That was 55.75 years of PTSD.
For those who have not seen PTSD or Depression or Schizophrenia at first hand, one analogy is this:- a woman is enjoying a normal pregnancy but then has a spontaneous miscarriage and the child dies. No one is to blame, nothing could be done to save the child - it's jut life. Is she angry? Depressed? PTSD? Would she like to sue someone if she could? For these pax, they CAN sue someone - so let them do so. A large part of the price of their ticket for that flight - was made up of insurance.
My father was in a bad aircraft crash when he was 21. He got pulled out of the buring wreckage and had PTSD all of his life. The problem being that the aircraft was an RAF Mosquito that crashed on take off in 1945 when an engine caught fire - and you don't want to be in a wooden aircraft fully fuelled and gunned up for night fighter operations with an engine fire. So there was no counselling and he just toughed it out. It wasn't nice and these days there would be some sort of compensation.
He died at the age of 78 and had the usual nightmare just the week before he died. That was 55.75 years of PTSD.
For those who have not seen PTSD or Depression or Schizophrenia at first hand, one analogy is this:- a woman is enjoying a normal pregnancy but then has a spontaneous miscarriage and the child dies. No one is to blame, nothing could be done to save the child - it's jut life. Is she angry? Depressed? PTSD? Would she like to sue someone if she could? For these pax, they CAN sue someone - so let them do so. A large part of the price of their ticket for that flight - was made up of insurance.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Travel Insurance
I understand and have read all of the threads here but still do not see why a airline should pay up for something that they did not cause while being in an industry that spends millions of dollars every year on the problems of birds around airports.
A passenger can purchase travel insurance. Just like car insurance or home insurance. Is is far from perfect and all policies are different.
An airline doesnt make much money on a $200 airfare and should not be expected to pay out milllions for each passenger for accidents and incidents that are completely out of its control. If a carrier is neglegent, that is different, but not a accident.
Millions of people every day suffer PTSD for different reasons and cope without sueing organisations who have no control over these accidents.
Look at wars, car accidents or terrorism.
The people at fault here are the mitigation lawyers who get rich from these court actions.
I am very sorry for all of the passengers and crew in this accident who may be suffering PTSD, but sueing US air is not the honest answer.
I cannot understand this SUE mentality.
There is a big travel insurance industry out there.
A passenger can purchase travel insurance. Just like car insurance or home insurance. Is is far from perfect and all policies are different.
An airline doesnt make much money on a $200 airfare and should not be expected to pay out milllions for each passenger for accidents and incidents that are completely out of its control. If a carrier is neglegent, that is different, but not a accident.
Millions of people every day suffer PTSD for different reasons and cope without sueing organisations who have no control over these accidents.
Look at wars, car accidents or terrorism.
The people at fault here are the mitigation lawyers who get rich from these court actions.
I am very sorry for all of the passengers and crew in this accident who may be suffering PTSD, but sueing US air is not the honest answer.
I cannot understand this SUE mentality.
There is a big travel insurance industry out there.
Guest
Posts: n/a
gavpav
I feel a Rainboe moment coming on.
Your comment is brainless.
The airlines take out insurance policies to cover against this sort of claim, so they don't pay. This insurance is a cost of doing business and is reflected in the ticketprice.
If you travel in my car and I skid through no fault of my driving, your lawyer will sue me and my insurance company will deal with the claim. It will either be settled out of court or by court judgment.
What part of this do you have trouble understanding?
Making a false claim is fraud (and the insurance companies are aware of the risk), but as explained by other posters before, lawsuits are normal practice to claim on insurance policies.
Doh
I feel a Rainboe moment coming on.
Your comment is brainless.
The airlines take out insurance policies to cover against this sort of claim, so they don't pay. This insurance is a cost of doing business and is reflected in the ticketprice.
If you travel in my car and I skid through no fault of my driving, your lawyer will sue me and my insurance company will deal with the claim. It will either be settled out of court or by court judgment.
What part of this do you have trouble understanding?
Making a false claim is fraud (and the insurance companies are aware of the risk), but as explained by other posters before, lawsuits are normal practice to claim on insurance policies.
Doh