UAL sued over 911
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we should all send our comments and feelings directly to the firm:
[email protected]
I just did (text below)
Yes, you must all be very proud. Reaping financial gain from the Sep. 11
disaster. What do you tell your kids you do for a living?
Aviation plaintiff attorneys have sunk to a new low - and I truly thought
they could go no lower.
Happy Holidays.
********* (Shore Guy)
757/767 Capt.
[email protected]
I just did (text below)
Yes, you must all be very proud. Reaping financial gain from the Sep. 11
disaster. What do you tell your kids you do for a living?
Aviation plaintiff attorneys have sunk to a new low - and I truly thought
they could go no lower.
Happy Holidays.
********* (Shore Guy)
757/767 Capt.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester UK & Cape Town South Africa
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading this makes me feel sick. I don't think there is a single person alive who hasn't been affected in some way by the events of September 11th.
The immediate response of America and her allies reflected all that was best about our society. Unfortunately the kind of action being pursued by the Nolan Law Group is beyond description. At a time when the US is battling through a recession - particularly aviation - this kind of action amounts to treachery.
The immediate response of America and her allies reflected all that was best about our society. Unfortunately the kind of action being pursued by the Nolan Law Group is beyond description. At a time when the US is battling through a recession - particularly aviation - this kind of action amounts to treachery.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, you can guess at the motives of the Nolan Law Group. But lawyers do not sue on their own behalf - they must represent a plaintiff.
Mrs. Mariani, the plaintiff, may be suing because she is angry, not because she is greedy. From a NY Daily News report:
"The couple was flying separately from Boston to California to attend the wedding of Mariani's daughter. She said her husband had not planned to go to the wedding, fearing it would cost too for much both of them to travel. But she raised enough money from a yard sale to surprise her husband with a ticket."
Try to imagine how you would feel in her shoes.
In order to sue, Mrs. Mariani is giving up a substantial and relatively speedy federal benefit. In the end she will receive greater compensation as the result of her suit but it will most likely stretch out her pain. However, if she feels some responsibility (and of course she should not but that is how the mind works) then pinning the blame on UAL may help.
With all the suicide terrorist attacks on US life and property abroad, with the security conferences filejw speaks of, and with a film such as Executive Decision depicting the use of a civilian a/c as a suicide terrorist's weapon it will not be easy to make the defence that the nature of the events of 9 11 could not be reasonably foreseen.
The report states:
"'She doesn't want taxpayers to have to make payment for her loss,' said Mariani's lawyer, Donald Nolan. 'She has elected to sue because United Airlines is fully insured for her loss.'" (Nolan is reported to have expressed the belief that UAL has 1.5 billion in liability coverage.)
Taking this at face value it appears that she is angry at UAL and wants to hold them responsible for the lack of cockpit security.
(Apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate. Danny was at the pub when I sent it the first time.)
Mrs. Mariani, the plaintiff, may be suing because she is angry, not because she is greedy. From a NY Daily News report:
"The couple was flying separately from Boston to California to attend the wedding of Mariani's daughter. She said her husband had not planned to go to the wedding, fearing it would cost too for much both of them to travel. But she raised enough money from a yard sale to surprise her husband with a ticket."
Try to imagine how you would feel in her shoes.
In order to sue, Mrs. Mariani is giving up a substantial and relatively speedy federal benefit. In the end she will receive greater compensation as the result of her suit but it will most likely stretch out her pain. However, if she feels some responsibility (and of course she should not but that is how the mind works) then pinning the blame on UAL may help.
With all the suicide terrorist attacks on US life and property abroad, with the security conferences filejw speaks of, and with a film such as Executive Decision depicting the use of a civilian a/c as a suicide terrorist's weapon it will not be easy to make the defence that the nature of the events of 9 11 could not be reasonably foreseen.
The report states:
"'She doesn't want taxpayers to have to make payment for her loss,' said Mariani's lawyer, Donald Nolan. 'She has elected to sue because United Airlines is fully insured for her loss.'" (Nolan is reported to have expressed the belief that UAL has 1.5 billion in liability coverage.)
Taking this at face value it appears that she is angry at UAL and wants to hold them responsible for the lack of cockpit security.
(Apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate. Danny was at the pub when I sent it the first time.)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sept attacks were declared "an act of war" which precludes direct carrier liability for death and injury. But in this great country of the U.S. of A. where McDonald's Restaurant was successfully sued for Millions in punitive damages over a spilled hot cup of coffee...there are no limits to judicial imagination.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Glueball is referring to the Arizona case the lady received second and third degree burns requiring skin grafts and significant hospitalization. The Mc Donald has been complained to numerous times for serving the coffee too hot, but chose to ignore the complaints. And by the way, the damages award was significantly reduced on appeal.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something here ?
Are the companies in question not insured ?
If they are then they will presumably pass these claims to their insurors. Isn't that why people or companies pay premiums ?
A claim is a potential loss on the policy, and even that is far from a certainty!
Rarely does money properly compensate for injury or the loss of a family member, unfortunetaly it is the only form of redress that is on the table. Whatever the circumstances and however much is or isn't paid to the claimants one thing you can be fairly sure of is that nobody will say sorry !
Are the companies in question not insured ?
If they are then they will presumably pass these claims to their insurors. Isn't that why people or companies pay premiums ?
A claim is a potential loss on the policy, and even that is far from a certainty!
Rarely does money properly compensate for injury or the loss of a family member, unfortunetaly it is the only form of redress that is on the table. Whatever the circumstances and however much is or isn't paid to the claimants one thing you can be fairly sure of is that nobody will say sorry !
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dublin
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a complete Disgrace....but only in America
What short memories people have of the suffering.
I know some of my friends who fly for US majors who now have insurance which protects their estate in the unfortunate case that they are killed in an incident and the relatives of the dead passengers try to take their wife/kids/estate..etc to court to gain some recompense. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
This of course happnened already but where does company insurance cover the pilot's estate and family in these situations????
I can't believe that this is happening but then as one person already has stated...who really cares when you have $50000000.00 in the bank
The yanks should really kick this one out of court and get on with building the business and country back up.....not intent on grabbing money.
What good will it do her.....it won't bring her husband back.....sadly.
What short memories people have of the suffering.
I know some of my friends who fly for US majors who now have insurance which protects their estate in the unfortunate case that they are killed in an incident and the relatives of the dead passengers try to take their wife/kids/estate..etc to court to gain some recompense. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
This of course happnened already but where does company insurance cover the pilot's estate and family in these situations????
I can't believe that this is happening but then as one person already has stated...who really cares when you have $50000000.00 in the bank
The yanks should really kick this one out of court and get on with building the business and country back up.....not intent on grabbing money.
What good will it do her.....it won't bring her husband back.....sadly.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just read on Teletext that the US govt is offering the families of the unfortunate people who died US$1.5million (it varies from $0.5.to $4.5 depending on age, quals, etc.) Perhaps the unfortunate widower is making a point in an attempt to get the govt to up the payment.
However it is America, where a woman who tried to dry her poodle in the microwave successfully sued the makers for not including a warning in the instruction manual!
However it is America, where a woman who tried to dry her poodle in the microwave successfully sued the makers for not including a warning in the instruction manual!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com," target="_blank">www.opinionjournal.com,</a> Best of the Web:
Ellen Mariani, a New Hampshire woman whose husband was on the plane that hit 2 World Trade Center, is suing United Airlines, alleging that the airline "breached its duty to care for the safety of the passengers on Flight 175." She's represented by the Nolan Law Group, a Chicago firm so crass it has actually set up a page <a href="http://www.nolan-law.com/comm_disaster/commaviation12.html" target="_blank">http://www.nolan-law.com/comm_disaster/commaviation12.html</a> on its Web site soliciting Sept. 11 clients. Mariani had previously been the subject of sympathetic profiles in the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader <a href="http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=5429" target="_blank">http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=5429</a> and the Daily Southtown <a href="http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/kadner/x30-pkd1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/kadner/x30-pkd1.htm</a> of suburban Chicago. "I think Mrs. Mariani is using her battle for compensation as a form of therapy," Southtown columnist Phil Kadner wrote--before Mariani sued the airline.
Ellen Mariani, a New Hampshire woman whose husband was on the plane that hit 2 World Trade Center, is suing United Airlines, alleging that the airline "breached its duty to care for the safety of the passengers on Flight 175." She's represented by the Nolan Law Group, a Chicago firm so crass it has actually set up a page <a href="http://www.nolan-law.com/comm_disaster/commaviation12.html" target="_blank">http://www.nolan-law.com/comm_disaster/commaviation12.html</a> on its Web site soliciting Sept. 11 clients. Mariani had previously been the subject of sympathetic profiles in the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader <a href="http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=5429" target="_blank">http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=5429</a> and the Daily Southtown <a href="http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/kadner/x30-pkd1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/kadner/x30-pkd1.htm</a> of suburban Chicago. "I think Mrs. Mariani is using her battle for compensation as a form of therapy," Southtown columnist Phil Kadner wrote--before Mariani sued the airline.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Blank, the plaintiff's argument is 'well they are insured'. I rest my case!
I seem to recollect that due to the rising costs of liability insurance, if they can get it at all, companies are either in danger of folding, passing on the increases to pax or have to get government bail out funding (taxpayer money).
Would the plaintiff accept an assurance that every 'reasonable' step would be taken to stop a re-occurance. Of course they wouldn't. You can dress it up in as much flowery legal argument as you like. It's still driven by GREED.
Just slightly off topic, is it possible to sue a lawyer for your loosing a court case? If so would you get another lawyer to represent you in that action?
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
I seem to recollect that due to the rising costs of liability insurance, if they can get it at all, companies are either in danger of folding, passing on the increases to pax or have to get government bail out funding (taxpayer money).
Would the plaintiff accept an assurance that every 'reasonable' step would be taken to stop a re-occurance. Of course they wouldn't. You can dress it up in as much flowery legal argument as you like. It's still driven by GREED.
Just slightly off topic, is it possible to sue a lawyer for your loosing a court case? If so would you get another lawyer to represent you in that action?
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the scum were carrying weapons that were legally permitted, i.e. security would allow knives etc. with a blade length of 3 inches. Presumably the security parameters were set by the FAA. How can the airlines be at fault?
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the fact that many legal types frequent this forum, the lawyer’s point of view is noticeably absent from this thread. Two possibilities exist here, either this discussion is beneath one’s dignity, or it entails an eventual admission of personable responsibility, something which would be extremely trying for those who merely “argue the case”. Surprising really, those who make a living defending others seem quite reluctant to defend themselves.
Anyone out there care to join the fray? Cat got yer forked tongue mateys?
[ 23 December 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]</p>
Anyone out there care to join the fray? Cat got yer forked tongue mateys?
[ 23 December 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The response "they’re insured" holds no water. Who ultimately pays for that insurance? Us, the consumers. The only winners in this game are the attorneys.
It is my understanding that the torts system on the east side of the pond is dramatically different, with restrictions on contingency fees, solicitation, and most importantly, penalties for filing frivolous suits. There are few such restrictions in the US (the lawyers make the law).
In the US, we have the highest lawyer/citizen ratio of any country in the world. Those who have been here have seen, read the repulsive advertisements for plaintiff attorneys soliciting for every imaginable perceived fault/slight under the sun. General Aviation was brought to its knees by the litigation issue, and the costs involved with liability coverage are enormous.
My son and I were discussing his career path recently (he is a senior in college), and the issue/possibility of law school came up. My response was that being a lawyer in this country is no longer an honorable profession.
By the way, my e-mail (previously posted) to the Nolan group remains unanswered - what a surprise.
It is my understanding that the torts system on the east side of the pond is dramatically different, with restrictions on contingency fees, solicitation, and most importantly, penalties for filing frivolous suits. There are few such restrictions in the US (the lawyers make the law).
In the US, we have the highest lawyer/citizen ratio of any country in the world. Those who have been here have seen, read the repulsive advertisements for plaintiff attorneys soliciting for every imaginable perceived fault/slight under the sun. General Aviation was brought to its knees by the litigation issue, and the costs involved with liability coverage are enormous.
My son and I were discussing his career path recently (he is a senior in college), and the issue/possibility of law school came up. My response was that being a lawyer in this country is no longer an honorable profession.
By the way, my e-mail (previously posted) to the Nolan group remains unanswered - what a surprise.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shore Guy,
I completely understand your feelings, be careful what you post on the internet, some lawyers bite back: see on Avweb, Athur Wolk case against Avweb and several suscribers.
I completely understand your feelings, be careful what you post on the internet, some lawyers bite back: see on Avweb, Athur Wolk case against Avweb and several suscribers.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the best cures for all types of frivolous lawsuits in the US is something that the legal lobby has been fighting tooth and nail against.
Loser pays everything. Just like in a lot of European nations. So before any attorney takes on a "juicy" case on contingency s/he would think about the possibility of losing and whether their client has the means to pay everyone's legal bills (especially his).
Of course, more importantly, it would encourage a lot of potential plaintiffs to think about it long and hard. Do I really have a strong case? Can I afford to risk everything for this "possible judgement"?
Loser pays everything. Just like in a lot of European nations. So before any attorney takes on a "juicy" case on contingency s/he would think about the possibility of losing and whether their client has the means to pay everyone's legal bills (especially his).
Of course, more importantly, it would encourage a lot of potential plaintiffs to think about it long and hard. Do I really have a strong case? Can I afford to risk everything for this "possible judgement"?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Denver, Co. usa
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are going to talk about justice and truth let us leave Bill Clintons name out of this. Secondly
, What is this "only in America" talk. Didnt the British government give up to 40,000 pounds to certain subjects who suffered mental anguish after watching the twin towers attack time after time on BBC television? Is it possible that thes poor creatures didnt know that the TV set had an OFF button?
[QUOTE] I am now Y2 compliant !!!
, What is this "only in America" talk. Didnt the British government give up to 40,000 pounds to certain subjects who suffered mental anguish after watching the twin towers attack time after time on BBC television? Is it possible that thes poor creatures didnt know that the TV set had an OFF button?
[QUOTE] I am now Y2 compliant !!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thedude, The plaintiff's argument is actually "It was the duty of United Airlines to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety and security of its passengers." I'm not a lawyer so I have neither the interest nor the expertise to argue her case.
Budgie69, As to "How can the airlines be at fault?", do you remember this image?
<a href="http://www.stethem.navy.mil/history/hijacking/hijacking_files/twa847.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.stethem.navy.mil/history/hijacking/hijacking_files/twa847.jpg</a>
Agreed that that was an entirely different type of hijacking, but in the sixteen years that have passed since TWA flight 847, steps were not taken to secure the cockpit. Had I been directly responsible for a family member being on board one of the four 9 11 flights then I would probably feel that the airlines had not done enough in the way of security. Whether or not a lawsuit is the best response I leave to others to debate.
Budgie69, As to "How can the airlines be at fault?", do you remember this image?
<a href="http://www.stethem.navy.mil/history/hijacking/hijacking_files/twa847.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.stethem.navy.mil/history/hijacking/hijacking_files/twa847.jpg</a>
Agreed that that was an entirely different type of hijacking, but in the sixteen years that have passed since TWA flight 847, steps were not taken to secure the cockpit. Had I been directly responsible for a family member being on board one of the four 9 11 flights then I would probably feel that the airlines had not done enough in the way of security. Whether or not a lawsuit is the best response I leave to others to debate.