The group that was leasing the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings sued American Airlines (AA) and United Airlines (UA), now United Continental for $8 billion for the loss of the buildings during the 9/11 attacks. The judge in the case reduced the damages to just over $2 billion, the amount they purchased the leases for, but he has ruled that the Airlines must go to trial.
I’m sure there are lots of legal arguments for and against a dismissal of this case, many of which could be researched and declared.
I’m more curious if you personally feel that the airlines were negligent in their duties in such a way that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by the terrorists.
This case IMHO, is a money grab by lawyers and is the equivalent of suing the auto makers of the car that the kidnappers drove to your house when they kidnapped your kid.
It’s a disgrace in my opinion to the memories of the flight crews of AA flight 11 and UA flight 175.
Why the gratuitous slam at lawyers? Lawyers do not generally commence litigation on their own initiative. They do so in the course of representing clients. Here, it appears the plaintiffs feel they have been damaged due to negligence by the airlines. The airlines see it differently. The lawsuit will eventually settle that dispute.
Many do in my experience, which includes 25 years of corporate finance working for and with large multinational corporations, and being involved on both sides as a plaintiff and defense support for numerous cases.
It’s ridiculous. Yes, the airlines could have prevented the terrorists from boarding, had they known that such an attack was possible. But they didn’t. No one did. The very idea was inconceivable at the time.
Perhaps they should instead sue the Port Authority because they didn’t cover the WTC in massive amounts of foam rubber to protect against such an event.
Then either you don’t work in the U.S., or you simply don’t understand what is happening. I’m a lawyer. I can’t just go sue somebody because I think they owe money to somebody else. I have to have the allegedly injured party hire me to represent them before I can file suit.
I am in the U.S. and I clearly know what’s going on. I congratulate you on your conviction of appropriate justice. But many companies have vast departments of in-house counsel, as well as large outside firms that they hold on retainer to represent them. I have seen numerous cases that have been initiated by either in-house counsel or outside counsel to their clients, that the management of the company had no intention of pursuing without the prodding of the legal guys.
No, you clearly don’t know what is going on. Advising a client to sue is not the same as filing a lawsuit on one’s own initiative. Corporate counsel, whether in house or outside, cannot just file lawsuits without the consent of the corporation. Period.
If things worked the way you mistakenly believe they do, I could have filed these lawsuits myself, never even discussing my plans with the plaintiff company. And so could thousands of other lawyers, for that matter. The fact that this is not what happened is further evidence that you are wrong.
We are clearly talking past each other. You are derailing my thread with your legalistic defense of your profession. I never said that lawyers file lawsuits on their own without a client. Those are words you are attempting to put in my mouth. All I have said is that there are tons of corporate lawyers that bring the idea of suing others to their clients…much in the same way that ambulance chasers do it at the individual level. Please take your de-railing somewhere else.
You seriously don’t think some lawyers go around looking to convince people to let them sue on their behalf?
It could be a client went looking for a lawyer to help them sue, but just as likely a lawyer who thinks they can get a settlement went looking for a client.
Yeah, I think it is pretty clear that Omar Little is ticked off at the corporate equivalent of ambulance-chasing lawyers, and doesn’t literally believe that some lawyers are filing lawsuits without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.
Can you guys take your rant(s) elsewhere, please? The OP had an interesting question, and i don’t give a shit about anyone’s opinion of what lawyers do (including the OP’s).
So all those ads on daytime TV for “1-800-INJURY” and “1-877-WHIPLASH” comply with this standard for professional conduct, right?
Holy cow, that’s some high ethical bar that has been set.
Why, oh why, have lawyers that advertise on daytime TV been perceived as distasteful for so long by so many people? Clearly the public wasn’t aware that these personal injury lawyers were complying with the “strict limits” that these ethical rules place on them. The entire law-talking-guy profession has been redeemed in my eyes because of your post.