I just want to make a - hopefully - quick point. Now maybe I don’t spend enough time online on msg boards, but when an intelligent conversation I am having with a human being diverts from can/can’t to should/shouldn’t, I don’t let impatience or self-imposed superiority rear it’s ugly head and cut that idea down. Bibliophage - and, again, I don’t spend much time on msg boards, so forgive me if I misinterperet the rules/etiquette - you have all the understanding and open-mindedness of a school marm priss, at least as evidenced in this series and in “bored on a saturday night,” which you closed. I understand yr role as a moderator (keeping things in line, etc), but really - these are such trifles that rile you. If you want to be so exacting (that the subject here is “can/can’t” not “should/shouldn’t”), then close this discussion right now - b/c the fact is that you can sue ANYBODY you darn well please. I could sue you for mental anguish due to the manner in which you moderate these boards. Along the same lines, you can have ANYONE arrested that you please (it has happened to acquaintances of mine)…you’ll be arrested and sued for the trouble, but you can do it! Likewise, you may not win your case, but you can sue anybody. Ergo, this discussion truly is about “should/shouldn’t” b/c if you can sue anybody (a fact attested to by my brother, a practicing lawyer for nearly the past 20 years) then you must temper your decision to sue by weighing the expenditures against the probability of winning - basically a should/shouldn’t question. OK - so that wasn’t short at all. The answer to your questions is (1) Yes you could sue the airline (see above) and (2) No, you shouldn’t sue, b/c the weapons used (the ones we know of so far at least) were allowed to be carried on board (a surprise to me, too). And it would be tasteless. I promise my next post will be less self-involved and more to the point.
I’m another ATLA member, and I largely concur with John’s analysis. The only cases that would look practically viable would be those in his categories #1 and #2. The success of claims against airlines and airport workers would be difficult, because the airlines would have the notorious “empty chair” defense. The terrorists are clearly more culpable than the airlines, who simply got duped. The airline lawyer will point at the terrorists’ empty chairs, and argue “why are we sitting here - they’re the real evildoers.” Still, there is a chance that a jury could act out of sympathy and react against the “big companies”. The culpability may very well turn on FAA regulations for inspection of passengers. If you can’t demonstrate an airline or airport worker’s deviation from his or her duty, you won’t get to a jury.
With respect to suits against the WTC building management, I think it is a travesty that workers were told to stay in their seats as the buildings burned - that may be a very viable case. But as I understand it, New York’s Port Authority runs the building, and because it is a state agency, the Port Aurthority might be immune from suit under the doctrine of “sovereign immunity”. That issue will turn on construction of New York Law.
As John said, there will be tons of litigation over these events, and much of it will be insurance issues. The WTC buildings carried billions of dollars of property damage coverage, which was parsed and sold on a secondary market for reinsurance. The reinsurance market deals in the re-sale of risk that is insured against, which allows primary insurers to diversify the risk that they hold and not carry “too many eggs in one basket”. The net result is that there are going to be dozens of insurers, both domestic and foreign, liable in varying amounts. There will be massive fights over how much the total loss is, and who pays how much, and in what order everyone pays.
Plus, there are going to be claims against business interruption policies filed by the companies that were hit. Lost profits nearly always require expert testimony to prove- hence, more lawsuits. Further, there will be many, many life insurance claims, and you can count on a fairly fixed percentage of those claims to result in lawsuits for various reasons.
Finally, if any one insurer gets into serious financial trouble over this (and there are a couple who are facing huge losses - one Swiss company is on the hook for 1 billion all by itself) they may try to invoke the “act of war” coverage exclusion that typically exists in each of these types of policies. More lawsuits. Thankfully, however, it appears that the life insurance industry is going to do the right thing and refuse to invoke that exclusion, according to their trade organization.
ArturoBandini, I’m not suggesting the subject of who should be sued can’t be discussed on the SDMB, but it can’t be discussed in this forum, which is for questions with factual answers. The other topic belongs in Great Debates. Furthermore, complaints and comments on the administration of this message board belong in the BBQ Pit.
I have carried, in my pockets, both a Leatherman and a switchblade onto a plane.
As I went through the metal detector, I dumped both into the bin along with random change, a lighter and my keys.
My metal pocket contents were looked at and handed back to me.
The leatherman looks like a tool, but my switchblade looks like a weapon.
For the record, I use them both in my line of work on computers and network wiring. The leatherman multi-tool is pretty standard fare, but I’ve found when I’m standing on a ladder with my head through dropped ceiling tiles trying to steady myself, it’s very hard to get the blade open on the leatherman…