OK, I heard on the news today that some of the families of the victims of 9/11 are going to sue the airlines instead of taking the compensation packages they were offered (taking the package would have meant that they’d wave their right to sue).
Please help me understand the mentality of suing the airlines. Here’s an analogy to help you understand how I see this.
I’m driving down the street, and at a stop light I get carjacked. Someone comes to the door with a gun, orders me out of the car, then drives off. Along the way they run over some kids. The parents of those kids then sue me, since it was my car.
Now, tell me where I’m wrong in my line of thinking, because I don’t understand this type of mentality.
What theory are the plaintiffs using? That the airlines were negligent in not having enough security or proper security to deter this type of thing or what?
I’m guessing that’s the argument - insufficient security.
I can’t help but think that there is an element in our country that thinks having a tragedy happen should be equivalent to winning the lottery in that you are somehow “entitled” to receive a lot of money.
Sueing the airlines for millions of dollars isn’t going to bring anyone back, the lawyers will get most of it, and seeing as both the airlines involved are bankrupt or nearly so it’s just going to put more financial strain on companies already teetering on the brink. Sueing United out of existance is going to accomplish… what? It’s not going to punish any individual responsible for 9/11 but it will put tens of thousands of people out of work.
*Joel *, the trouble is that airlines are normally considered 100% liable for crashes. When they’re sued, the only question is the amount of damages. This normally makes sense, as the passenger surely wasn’t at fault.
The key is joint and several liability. The airline can be required to pay 100% of the loss, even if they contributed only a small portion of the negligence.
In short, people are suing the airlines because they can get a lot of money.
I fully agree with you that this isn’t fair in the case of the 9/11 attacks.
I don’t agree that the airlines should not be liable. From what I can see, they were pretty bad about security prior to 9/11. That’s what a trial is for. To determine how shoddy they were when it came to security and if that shoddiness contributed to the tragedies.
That may be, but a lot of things went wrong, and its not at all clear that the Airlines could have done anything. They did, after all, take the plane with some cheap boxcutters. No guns, no bombs, not even a decent knife, but a $1.50 boxcutter. And prior to 9/11, there was no federal system in place for making sure terrorists didn’t get on airplanes. Plus, everyone had been sayng for years that the best thing to do was to knuckle under, stay quiet, and wait till they got off.
Well, all I know is prior to 9/11 I read news report after news report about security failures at airports. The security guards were minimum wage staff with little training. Now, I don’t know if that is directly related to the hijackings or not. We’ll find out in the trial.
I don’t know if this is directed at me, but that is what the trial is for.
See, I think this is more along the lines of a mall that has repeated rapes, murders, and carjackings in their parking lot. They refuse to do anything about it. Now, you are carjacked in their parking lot. Is the mall liable? Perhaps. It certainly depends on the circumstances, but the mall doesn’t automatically get to be not liable because somebody else did the carjacking.
That would be my guess. That, and they can’t sue the hijackers since they’re dead, so they’re going after whoever they can get the most money from, in my opinion.
Oh, by the way, sorry for not posting a link about my OP. Here it is.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-13-911-families-cover-usat_x.htm
What doesn’t make sense to me is taking the risk.
The compensation packages are a hefty chunk of change, IIRC. To refuse this in order to sue the airline is very risky. The airline might not have to pay at all and you are left with nothing. Even if they do pay, it would most likely be many years from now. Or, they could just take the compensation package today with no wait or risk.
Anybody know the numbers that are at stake here? Also, if they do sue the airline, would they still get the money donated by Americans and George Clooney? 
I see your point, and not to be nit picky, but actually, most parking lots I see have signs saying that they’re not responsible for theft or property damage, so I’d guess that just about anything that happens in a parking lot that isn’t caused by the owner(s) or employees, isn’t their responsibility.
Of course, it can be argued that it’s a different case where 9/11 is concerned, but when you look at it, the terrorists went about this in a very unusual manner. In the past, terrorists used knives and guns, so these attacks were unexpected, and I don’t think that the airlines should be held responsible for something that took them totally by surprise.
Well, we’ll have to get a lawyer to weigh in on this, but I believe the mall may be liable in the case of rape/carjacking/murder regardless of any signs posted.
Hijackings are not new. The end result of this particular hijacking is different than in the past, but we have had numerous hijackings of American airliners around the world that have resulted in the deaths of some crew and passangers. The airlines could have put a security guard on each flight (I think El Al does this) and reinforced cockpit doors a long time ago (I think El Al does this as well). They made a cost calculation and determined it wasn’t worth it. Well, now they may have to pay for such a cost calculation.
As I said, it’s something for a trial to bear out, but I certainly think it’s plausible that the presence of an armed guard would be a deterrent to box-cutters.
Oh, so I guess it is a negligence suit:
There is also bit of info. out there on parking lot liability, like
http://www.bit-net.com/~dka/Resources/$18million.html
I find that a little hard to believe (that doesn’t make it wrong though). If I as a murderer or predatory rapist eye up two different malls in which I’d like to ‘do my thing’, the mall I pick becomes liable for my crime based on a criminal whim? Was one more negligent than the other because of this?