Passengers in BA 777 LAS Incident to sue......
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The people who should be sued in this incident are the pax who picked up and lugged their carry ons with them........
...Oddly I would bet that in most cases its the same group of people who think only of themselves.
...Oddly I would bet that in most cases its the same group of people who think only of themselves.
It would put a bit of a dampener on your claim of 'severe mental distress' after you were forced to run screaming from the burning aircraft, when the cross examining lawyer points out that your 'distress' didn't stop you from taking the time to make sure you had your iPad and your duty free with you before you left! 😳
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Once had to sit next to a passenger for whom personal hygiene was unknown. Next time I shall not suck it up. 
I doubt whether anyone can prove that General Electric or Boeing were at fault. It has been suggested that certain parties knew the condition of the engine, but this is pure speculation. In which case it may take decades to sort out. I bet some have gone under the guise of a 'no win no fee' basis.
A quote from Reuters
I wonder what the difficult circumstances were? Pax taking hand baggage and impeding an evacuation?
The full story.
Passengers on BA jet that caught fire in Las Vegas sue Boeing, GE | Reuters
A quote from Reuters
"Our clients are not critical of BA and feel that the pilots and cabin crew performed heroically in guiding the aircraft to an emergency stop, and then evacuating all occupants away from the burning aircraft in difficult circumstances," Healy-Pratt said in the statement.
The full story.
Passengers on BA jet that caught fire in Las Vegas sue Boeing, GE | Reuters
Given that I don't believe there's ever been a case where there has been any loss of life even partly connected with those evacuating taking bags with them, despite it happening very many times, I'm not quite sure how you come to this conclusion.
I doubt whether anyone can prove that General Electric or Boeing were at fault. It has been suggested that certain parties knew the condition of the engine, but this is pure speculation.
The FAA, to their credit, imposed a more onerous and expensive regime than the cheaper one advocated by Boeing and GE.
No doubt the report into the incident will cast light on whether the FAA mandated regime was rigorous enough given the evidence available at the time. I can't imagine it will praise Boeing / GE's original stance on how the defect should be handled. However it's perfectly possible that, given the evidence available at the time, that their position was not unreasonable and that the FAA was simply playing it safe.
We won't know until the report is out.
Since When Did a Court Base an Engineering Decision on Reality?
And there in lies the problem for Boeing / GE. Now that this incident has happened it will be easy in court to portray the sequence of exchanges between Boeing/GE and the FAA unfavourably. If the accident report is damning of one or the other, then arguably they'd deserve what would be coming to them.
Cooperate With the Regulator, They Are Your Friend!
There's only one real way for a company to defend itself against actions like this. A company can reach cooperative agreements with the regulator. The stronger the regulator, the better. Then in the event of an incident there can be no question of malice or negligence. That will automatically reduce any court awarded damages, or possibly eliminate them altogether.
If Boeing or GE have spent the last few years trying to reduce the authority of the FAA, they may be about to suffer the consequences. Lobbying for a reduction in regulatory oversight is a good recipe for short term gain for long term pain.
Uber are making the same mistake in the taxi market. The taxi regulations are there to protect customers and operators. If a firm has done everything required of them by the regulators, it is hardly their fault if a rogue driver ends up attacking someone. By ignoring the regulators they are taking on full responsibility for all consequences, with an added dose of wilful negligence thrown in for good measure.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Actual damages" is a slippery concept
Russian Roulette story....
Let's say someone puts one single bullet in a six-shot revolver, spins the cylinder, points the barrel at your head, and pulls the trigger....
Click!... you lucked out, the chamber was empty.
Where do you and he stand?
In concrete space, you suffered no damages. No harm, no foul.
In probability space, he subjected you to a 1/6 chance of dying, so you are entitled to 1/6 the compensation you might have received had he killed you, and he should be punished with at least 1/6 the punishment of premeditated murder.
If a manufacturer acts negligently -- for example, in an automobile, uses cardboard for brake lining material -- and, as it happens, that negligence doesn't actually cause your injury or death, -- for example, because you happened to notice it before driving down a mountain pass -- has the manufacturer harmed you? Are you entitled to compensation?
It's trickier than it looks, and "you didn't actually suffer any concrete loss" is not necessarily a defense.
Let's say someone puts one single bullet in a six-shot revolver, spins the cylinder, points the barrel at your head, and pulls the trigger....
Click!... you lucked out, the chamber was empty.
Where do you and he stand?
In concrete space, you suffered no damages. No harm, no foul.
In probability space, he subjected you to a 1/6 chance of dying, so you are entitled to 1/6 the compensation you might have received had he killed you, and he should be punished with at least 1/6 the punishment of premeditated murder.
If a manufacturer acts negligently -- for example, in an automobile, uses cardboard for brake lining material -- and, as it happens, that negligence doesn't actually cause your injury or death, -- for example, because you happened to notice it before driving down a mountain pass -- has the manufacturer harmed you? Are you entitled to compensation?
It's trickier than it looks, and "you didn't actually suffer any concrete loss" is not necessarily a defense.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So sue away folks. I have no loyalty to these accountant managed airlines or manufacturers. They've destroyed this profession and many others by lying and cheating. If this malfunction was in any way related to cutting corners at some point along the required processes, then why should we defend that?
If an airline intentionally skimps of maintenance etc, they deserve it.
My beef is the way people sue for anything (even out of the pilots or Airlines control). It should be on the ticket that no Aircraft can be guaranteed to never fail. (otherwise those 6 monthly Sims sessions were a waist of time and money, the Aircraft/Engine/Hydraulics CANNOT possibly fail.
Every time we drive on the road or motorway, we are subjecting ourselves to risk. But we chose to travel rather than stay at home. The flying public should understand flying is subject to risks too, albeit small, and unless its gross negligence, they shouldn't be allowed to sue. Just IMHO.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alas legislation encourages people to sue if you look at my earlier post, legislation says the airline is responsible regardless for approx £103,000 of proven loss, therefore every lawyer in the country would give it a go to prove their client had a loss of at least thing amount as it is easy pickings.
plus of course the most important bit, they will all be on conditional fee agreements (no win no fee, invented in the US but in the EU largely only existing in the UK and Eire) whereby the solicitor will get a nice cut (between 20 and 100%) on top of whatever the passenger gets.
plus of course the most important bit, they will all be on conditional fee agreements (no win no fee, invented in the US but in the EU largely only existing in the UK and Eire) whereby the solicitor will get a nice cut (between 20 and 100%) on top of whatever the passenger gets.
As I recall, nobody slapped Boeing or Rolls for a poorly designed fuel/oil heat exchanger design that resulted in quite a few more (and serious) injuries when BA 038 came in for a dead-stick landing. As well as causing more than a few mysterious uncommanded thrust roll-backs.
However in this case it seems (and I realise I'm prejudging, the report is not out yet AFAIK) that there was a known issue with the compressor disk (which is what we're all assuming to be the root cause). The difference is that this problem was well known before the compressor disk let go, not afterwards. From a court case point of view, that temporal arrangement is not good for Boeing's or GE's defence.
However
I think that it is highly inappropriate that a civil case is being brought in advance of the report being issued. The investigators should be free to conduct their work unencumbered by the knowledge that their words are going to have more of an impact. They should not have to worry about how their words are going to be interpreted in a court case, they should be allowed to right their conclusions freely.
Now they are implicitly pressurised to come up with a definitive attribution of blame (for that is what a court wants) whereas in fact the true conclusions may be more much more vague.
Of course the investigators in this case are most likely going to be highly professional and immune to the pressure, but it's still going to be in the back of their minds. I think that we'd all be better off if they didn't have to think about it at all.
They should be writing letters of thanks.
It's called the "lawsuit lottery" for good reason.
I've been involved in lawsuits - on both sides - and based on those experiences my total disgust for lawyers is completely justified
. However, while being involved in a lawsuit is extraordinarily unpleasant, it can be a learning experience. Among other things, I had more than one lawyer tell me (in so many words) that they hate having engineers on the jury because we tend to look for facts and logic, while the lawyers (especially in tort cases) try to appeal to emotions.
I'm surprised that, at least according to the reports I've seen, BA is not listed as a defendant. This violates rule #1 of filing a lawsuit - you list EVERYONE who has any possibility of being liable. You see, it's really easy to drop someone once the lawsuit is filed if it turns out they have no liability - but it's all but impossible to add someone who turns out to be liable - you basically have to quit and start over again.
If it turns out (and I'm just hypothesizing here - not trying to impugn BA) that mandated inspections were either not done, or not done correctly and existing cracks were missed, GE/Boeing can simply say 'if BA had done what we told them to do (and what the AD mandated), this never would have happened' and they're pretty much off the hook. The lawyers will need to go back and start over again.
I've been involved in lawsuits - on both sides - and based on those experiences my total disgust for lawyers is completely justified
. However, while being involved in a lawsuit is extraordinarily unpleasant, it can be a learning experience. Among other things, I had more than one lawyer tell me (in so many words) that they hate having engineers on the jury because we tend to look for facts and logic, while the lawyers (especially in tort cases) try to appeal to emotions. I'm surprised that, at least according to the reports I've seen, BA is not listed as a defendant. This violates rule #1 of filing a lawsuit - you list EVERYONE who has any possibility of being liable. You see, it's really easy to drop someone once the lawsuit is filed if it turns out they have no liability - but it's all but impossible to add someone who turns out to be liable - you basically have to quit and start over again.
If it turns out (and I'm just hypothesizing here - not trying to impugn BA) that mandated inspections were either not done, or not done correctly and existing cracks were missed, GE/Boeing can simply say 'if BA had done what we told them to do (and what the AD mandated), this never would have happened' and they're pretty much off the hook. The lawyers will need to go back and start over again.
Among other things, I had more than one lawyer tell me (in so many words) that they hate having engineers on the jury because we tend to look for facts and logic, while the lawyers (especially in tort cases) try to appeal to emotions.
Personally speaking I find the whole jury system and the poor way in which scientific, medical and technical evidence is handled by UK courts disgraceful and appalling. It has lead to quite a few well publicised miscarriages of justice and suicides. I really don't know how judges can preside over such a sorry state of affairs and sleep well in their beds at night. The inquisitorial system used throughout much of Europe is far better.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Personally speaking I find the whole jury system and the poor way in which scientific, medical and technical evidence is handled by UK courts disgraceful and appalling. It has lead to quite a few well publicised miscarriages of justice and suicides. I really don't know how judges can preside over such a sorry state of affairs and sleep well in their beds at night. The inquisitorial system used throughout much of Europe is far better'
I utterly agree.
A barrister acquaintance reckons that 40 percent of those found guilty are in fact innocent - which is reflected in the light sentences passed down; sentences often criticised by the media.
There is also no automatic right of appeal which is a travesty in this day and age.
I utterly agree.
A barrister acquaintance reckons that 40 percent of those found guilty are in fact innocent - which is reflected in the light sentences passed down; sentences often criticised by the media.
There is also no automatic right of appeal which is a travesty in this day and age.
Russian Roulette story....
Let's say someone puts one single bullet in a six-shot revolver, spins the cylinder, points the barrel at your head, and pulls the trigger....
Click!... you lucked out, the chamber was empty.
Where do you and he stand?
In concrete space, you suffered no damages. No harm, no foul.
In probability space, he subjected you to a 1/6 chance of dying, so you are entitled to 1/6 the compensation you might have received had he killed you, and he should be punished with at least 1/6 the punishment of premeditated murder.
If a manufacturer acts negligently -- for example, in an automobile, uses cardboard for brake lining material -- and, as it happens, that negligence doesn't actually cause your injury or death, -- for example, because you happened to notice it before driving down a mountain pass -- has the manufacturer harmed you? Are you entitled to compensation?
It's trickier than it looks, and "you didn't actually suffer any concrete loss" is not necessarily a defense.
Let's say someone puts one single bullet in a six-shot revolver, spins the cylinder, points the barrel at your head, and pulls the trigger....
Click!... you lucked out, the chamber was empty.
Where do you and he stand?
In concrete space, you suffered no damages. No harm, no foul.
In probability space, he subjected you to a 1/6 chance of dying, so you are entitled to 1/6 the compensation you might have received had he killed you, and he should be punished with at least 1/6 the punishment of premeditated murder.
If a manufacturer acts negligently -- for example, in an automobile, uses cardboard for brake lining material -- and, as it happens, that negligence doesn't actually cause your injury or death, -- for example, because you happened to notice it before driving down a mountain pass -- has the manufacturer harmed you? Are you entitled to compensation?
It's trickier than it looks, and "you didn't actually suffer any concrete loss" is not necessarily a defense.
But were you forced to play that game, or did you choose it willingly?
Big difference.
Actually, Have to agree with that. I've left the industry partly as It wasn't the career Id hoped for.
If an airline intentionally skimps of maintenance etc, they deserve it.
My beef is the way people sue for anything (even out of the pilots or Airlines control). It should be on the ticket that no Aircraft can be guaranteed to never fail. (otherwise those 6 monthly Sims sessions were a waist of time and money, the Aircraft/Engine/Hydraulics CANNOT possibly fail.
Every time we drive on the road or motorway, we are subjecting ourselves to risk. But we chose to travel rather than stay at home. The flying public should understand flying is subject to risks too, albeit small, and unless its gross negligence, they shouldn't be allowed to sue. Just IMHO.
If an airline intentionally skimps of maintenance etc, they deserve it.
My beef is the way people sue for anything (even out of the pilots or Airlines control). It should be on the ticket that no Aircraft can be guaranteed to never fail. (otherwise those 6 monthly Sims sessions were a waist of time and money, the Aircraft/Engine/Hydraulics CANNOT possibly fail.
Every time we drive on the road or motorway, we are subjecting ourselves to risk. But we chose to travel rather than stay at home. The flying public should understand flying is subject to risks too, albeit small, and unless its gross negligence, they shouldn't be allowed to sue. Just IMHO.
And the lawyers' compensation should never be based on the amount of the settlement.
Another senior lawyer told me (and a meeting) :
"Do not confuse The Law in a civil action with Justice. It is a sophisticated game played out between professionals on both sides, while the participants involved just look on as spectators".
"Do not confuse The Law in a civil action with Justice. It is a sophisticated game played out between professionals on both sides, while the participants involved just look on as spectators".
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
msbbarratt:
I think this might be due to the discrepancy in investigation times and times for someone to do the legal move. I saw a post that a passanger has 2 years to sue from the time the plane should have arrived. Considering that some investigations takes much more time than that (BA38 f.ex. took about four years) it MIGHT be that this makes the process backwards.
I think that it is highly inappropriate that a civil case is being brought in advance of the report being issued.
