Can/will anyone be sued by the families of victims of the recent tragedies? Can someone sue the airports or airliners for “letting” terrorists get on the planes?
Sure, lawsuits can be filed against any number of parties. You can sue somebody for the mental anguish you may have experienced this last few days. I doubt you’d have much success, and I hope we don’t see too many trial lawyers slobbering over the recent tragedy.
I’ve heard that congress is working on legislation to limit airlines’ liability. Otherwise, American and United would certainly be bankrupted by lawsuits. As it is, I’ve heard that one airline, which was in bankruptcy reorginization before the bombing, has announded that it is permanently ending all services. The national grounding of airplanes and the loss of revenue it caused was too much for the company to withstand. I can’t remember the name of the airline, though.
The Association of Trial Layers of America has called for a moratorium on all civil law suits stemming from the events of the last few days.
http://www.atlanet.org/homepage/tragedy.ht
Diceman -Midway Airlines.
But the airlines weren’t careful enough about checking passengers and bags. Shouldn’t they at least have to pay something towards the upbringing and education of children who lost a parent in the tragedy? I can’t really feel sorry for a big company.
This is a bit of a, uh, hijack, but . . .
Does anyone have even a general idea how much insurance coverage a major airline carries? I’m sure it’s massive (a crash of a 300-passenger plane due to pilot negligence is certainly foreseeable when it comes to planning), but how much? $1B? $10B? I know I might be able to sift through a dozen 10-Ks but hopefully some doper has a better idea. Just curious . . .
I have seen nothing in the news so far to the effect that any of the hijackers were carrying any weapons that were not allowed. I was surprised to learn what was allowed - I certainly hadn’t thought that you could carry a box cutter on board, but apparently that was OK.
I’m glad to hear the trial lawyers are holding off.
Ever notice how when you go to the airport and through the security gates, they ask you to empty your pockets into the baskets and just pass it right past the detectors? If it’s busy enough, they don’t even look at those baskets.
When I worked at a store we had box cutters that looked similar to a large stick of gum. I can see how that could be overlooked if you were a bored security guard.
I heard a retired FBI fellow on the news talk vapidly about the lack of trained security personnel at the airports. He said “they sit around and read comic books while weapons pass through,” is what he said.
Hopefully people will a little more patient at airports now, and not make these people at security checkpoints feel as though they have to rush. And conversely, these security people won’t rush no matter what.
On what do you base that statement, Ariadne? On Tuesday morning, there was no specific policy forbidding box cutters. If an airline let someone with a box cutter in his carry-on luggage on board, they were not acting negligently. It appears the terrorists managed to take control of the planes armed with weapons like that, and with the threat of a bomb.
Your lack of sympathy for a big company is troubling – why should a “big company” have to pay for something that wasn’t their fault?
- Rick
The general question here is whether the companies can be sued, not whether they should be (which is a great debate).
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Ariadne? If you “can’t really feel sorry for a big company,” then how about all of the thousands of people that a big company employs? Every big company is made up of a lot of little people.
Jess
Give me 45 minutes (or less) for dinner and I’ll give you an answer . . .
**BRICKER **, isn’t an airline a common carrier? Aren’t they held to a higher standard of care? If there were no policy against knives (with a blade less than 4" I heard), perhaps they should have had that policy. There was an intentional, intervening act, but it was their negligence (?) that allowed that act.
O.K. In evaluating the accuracy of this answer, bear in mind:
Pro: IAAL, Plaintiff’s side, member of ATLA (see above post).
Con: Our firm doesn’t/hasn’t handled aviation cases. Also, I don’t know about NY/MA/NJ/DC/VA law, which will be more applicable to these incidents than TX.
But, assuming this was a question on the Board Certificiation Exam:
Potential Defendants:
-
Those Who Were Responsible For Security
– The Airline
– The “Security People” at the Metal Detectors (probably independent contractors)
– The Airports of Origin (I’ve already seen stories about Logan being notorious when it comes to letting people on board with guns).Best Case under present facts: Negligence in promulgating inspection procedures; negligence in inspecting passengers; negligence in credentialing employees/allowing access to planes (if in fact anything was planted)
Strength of Case?: Probably your best defendants. Bear in mind that they are “common carriers”. They make money from you and you literally place your life in their hands. They are held to a very high degree of care. Perhaps this is modified by the tariff/contract on every ticket but unlikely. Need an expert there. Do they have a defense? Sure. But on the other hand when a jury has to choose between finding them negligent and sending a truly 100% innocent widow/orphan home with nothing, they’re going to lose some. This leads to a GD. Also as a side issue here is the possiblity of a “legislative solution” whereby Congress creates an administrative compensation scheme as occured with the Black Lung Leglislation (coal miners) and has been suggested with asbestos.
-
[For the WTC office-worker victims]: Those Who Were Responsible for Emergency Plans/Evacuating WTC.
– Owner of Building
– Management Company (if seperate)
– Independent Contractors
Best Case on Current Facts: There are plenty of reports of people being told to stay up there. Any instruction/plan other than “get the hell out of there” is going to be negligence in most juries’ eyes. Also, possibility that the evacuation plans/resources were inadequate, i.e. “Towering Inferno” (unlikely).Strength of Case?: Not as good but still #2 as I see it and certainly not a long-shot, just a “non-target defendant.”
-
[For the WTC office-worker victims]: The designers/architects of the WTC. A real longshot here. Looks like the building held up pretty well, all told.
-
Osama Bin Laden and other persons: Sure, they’re liable as all hell (presumably). But how do you collect a judgment? If any of OBL’s $ is ever found you’re going to be way back in line behind the US Gov’t, various insurance and reinsurance companies, etc.
-
Foreign Governments that Aided and Abetted: Harder to prove. Harder to hold liable (complications from the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act). Same collection problems as above.
In short: There’s going to be a ton of litigation over this – victims (and their families) – insurance coverage battles – you name it. Lots of GDs about who should be liable, etc. (My one biased comment to a previous comment – Ford, Firestone, and Johns-Manville/Owens-Corning (asbestos Ds) were made up of people too . . .). And bear in mind that we don’t know all of the facts. My firm does handle a lot of industrial injury cases. Very often, the true liability picture isn’t clear at first. This is a complex situation and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see my off-the-cuff ranking change over time.
One brief clarification: Only the airlines are common carriers. I don’t think this would extend to the airport security firms or the airports.
Sorry.
bin Laden should be the one being sued, not the airlines. I don’t think the airlines, airport or FAA should be considered remotely responsible for anything. If a hijacker was determined enough, he could use a dinner fork, dinner knife, string from his shoes or even threaten to gouge out someones eyes to force a hijack.
It would truly be a travesty of justice if someone or some company was sued. Look, you can sue anyone for anything, but this case the liability rests with the terrorists only.
One more clarification: I think Beatle is wrong in suggesting that the average member of the public will be able to sue for the mental anguish of seeing it happen or knowing that it happened. I think your potential plaintiffs are limited to those who were killed or injured and their relatives, and perhaps “bystanders” who were either in the buildings or extremely close to them such that they were in the “zone of danger”. This answer would get me no better than a C- on this point, but it is a start and I am certain about the basic point that there is no “general standing” to sue just as an enraged American.
Why should the “big company” be sued just because you don’t feel sorry for it? The “big company” is as much as victim as the other victims.
This is a free society, no one wants their bags and clothing checked when they go into theatres or restaurants or ball games. Have you even been on a flight, gone to a movie? If you haven’t complained that they didn’t check you or check you throughly enough then you yourself are also liable for the airlines laxity. It’s easy to point fingers after the fact.
Major Feelgud, please see my post above. We are not debating who should or should not be sued, we are only discussing who can and cannot be sued.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
JohnW77707, IANAL, and I was not seriously suggesting that the OP sue anyone for mental anguish. That part of my post was meant (and apparently failed) to point out that the question did not ask who can be successfully sued.
Whenever the anticipated flood of litigation begins, there will likely be a few parties who will be sued, but who will prevail in court. Sounds like a nitpick, perhaps, but successfully defending against a lawsuit can be quite the drain on a defendant.