# Were AA and UA negligently responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 5, 2012, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742 "2012-09-05T13:00:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Szlater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/90ced4/32.png) [@Szlater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Szlater)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/41 "2012-09-05T18:32:00Z")
> [@bup](#): > > It’s not all civil disagreements, it’s [frivolous litigation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation). The concept exists; our civil court system recognizes such cases exist. Nobody here made it up. But wouldn’t the court have to decide whether it is frivolous or not? ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/42 "2012-09-05T18:34:28Z")
Prior to 9/11, the TSA as the overlords of airport security didn’t exist–I believe it was all private firms. What, if any, role did the airlines have in the security setup? If they had any say in airport screening and security policies, then that could be one avenue of possible negligence. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/43 "2012-09-05T21:39:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > …Those ads are placed by third party vendors who refer callers to lawyers for a fixed fee (as in, the lawyer pays the service a set monthly or yearly amount for sending him clients, regardless of how many they actually send him or how much he makes off each one)… Are you sure about this? I think many of those ads have the actual lawyer talking to the camera. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/44 "2012-09-06T01:00:03Z")
Lawyers can advertise themselves, and many do, but the “800-PAIN” type ads are not run by lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/45 "2012-09-06T01:14:52Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Those ads are placed by third party vendors who refer callers to lawyers for a fixed fee (as in, the lawyer pays the service a set monthly or yearly amount for sending him clients, regardless of how many they actually send him or how much he makes off each one). > > They comply with Model Rule 7.3 to the extent that non-lawyers are not required to comply with the rule. Most state bar associations have proposed some sort of amendment that will prohibit lawyers from accepting referrals from third parties who do not comply with the rule, but the public comment and amendment process for that sort of thing takes years. A workaround, then? ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/46 "2012-09-06T04:17:31Z")
I don’t think it’s gonna fly (sorry) (well, no, not really). The strict liability recourse for damage by aircraft is specifically for damage caused by “ascent, descent or flight of aircraft, or by the dropping or falling of an object from the aircraft.” None of these physical elements can be attributed to the airlines; the crashes were caused by external actors, not any operation of the airlines or their employees. This is where negligence comes in – the plaintiffs will need to demonstrate that the airlines should have done something and failed to do it. There are arguments for this: some security experts had been agitating for decades to get cockpits secured (they were locked for takeoff, but keys were kept nearby), and airport security was quite lax before 9/11. But the rules were universal in American air travel, as was the policy of co-operating with hijackers. Following the rules is generally, though not always, a good shield against liability. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/47 "2012-09-06T06:08:12Z")
**Nametag** just said what I would have said…and better! In my humble opinion, the lawsuit is, if not frivolous, a lost cause. The airlines were not negligent; they simply didn’t know that kind of risk existed. No one did. (Except for Tom Clancy. He knew.) ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/48 "2012-09-13T04:40:26Z")
Tom Clancy had a plane crashed by a crazed airline pilot, who murdered a copilot and faked out the controllers. The idea that hijackers might do the same thing was, if raised, not taken seriously; after all, those clowns can’t fly a plane! (Pity no one thought of the obvious rejoinder: “they don’t have to fly it very well, do they?” ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/49 "2012-09-13T12:41:34Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Tom Clancy had a plane crashed by a crazed airline pilot, who murdered a copilot and faked out the controllers. **The idea that hijackers might do the same thing was, if raised, not taken seriously;** Odd, given that in 1994 it [happened in real life.](http://www.damninteresting.com/aches-on-a-plane/) Almost. The hijacker was intent upon crashing the plane into FedEx headquarters but was overpowered by the flight crew, despite the horrifying near-fatal injuries he had inflicted upon them. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/50 "2012-09-13T12:43:27Z")
Silverstein has not endeared himself to anyone with the way he has been whining about his lost revenue almost since the smoke cleared, however technically valid his claim may be. I don’t think the airlines were in any position to pay him off enough “go away” money. > [@Nametag](#): > > This is where negligence comes in – the plaintiffs will need to demonstrate that the airlines should have done something and failed to do it. There are arguments for this: some security experts had been agitating for decades to get cockpits secured (they were locked for takeoff, but keys were kept nearby), and airport security was quite lax before 9/11. But **the rules were universal in American air travel, as was the policy of co-operating with hijackers**. Following the rules is generally, though not always, a good shield against liability. And you have also the “reasonable person” principle when judging as to whether someone’s actions were negligent – based on what knowledge they had at the time, would a reasonable person have established the policies and procedures as to avoid this. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/51 "2012-09-13T13:23:23Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > A workaround, then? Not sure what you’re getting at here, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/52 "2012-09-13T13:34:13Z")
I think suing the airlines makes little sense-both are facing bankruptcy. It would make more sense to sue people who have a lot of money/attachable assets: -the Government of Saudi Arabia: the funded the radical islamist sects -the Bin Laden Family: multi-billion $$ construction firm -MASSPORT: the management of Logan Airport ignored obvious signs, and allowed these people to board unchecked -the German Government: they provided sanctuary and scholarships for the terrorists who planned the operation in Hamburg -the MA State Police: responsible for security at Logan Lawsuits against these entities would make more sense. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/53 "2012-09-13T13:39:41Z")
Why stop there? How about Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, where the hijackers learned to fly? Or the State of Florida? Hell, why not Boeing? Or the Federal government? After all, _they were here the whole time_! ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/54 "2012-09-13T14:34:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Those ads are placed by third party vendors who refer callers to lawyers for a fixed fee (as in, the lawyer pays the service a set monthly or yearly amount for sending him clients, regardless of how many they actually send him or how much he makes off each one). > > They comply with Model Rule 7.3 to the extent that non-lawyers are not required to comply with the rule. Most state bar associations have proposed some sort of amendment that will prohibit lawyers from accepting referrals from third parties who do not comply with the rule, but the public comment and amendment process for that sort of thing takes years. > [@kayaker](#): > > A workaround, then? > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not sure what you’re getting at here, sorry. I was being cynical. Lawyers have rules that they shouldn’t be soliciting clients. A “work around”, whereby someone else does the solicitation in exchange for a kick back is really not something the profession should be proud of. One of my best friends is a lawyer, and I have been helped out of several jams by lawyers. I like lawyers. But let’s be honest.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/55 "2012-09-13T14:42:47Z")
That’s not quite right. Lawyers _can_ solicit clients. They just can’t do it in person or by telephone unless the solicitee is a former client. The 800-PAIN type services aren’t breaking the rules on solicitation (you call them, not the other way around), they’re breaking the rules on what you can and can’t tell a prospective client in an ad (“we’ll get you a large cash settlement”, “we’re really, really good lawyers”, etc.) It _is_ a workaround, yes, and as I said the profession is trying to close the loophole. The original contention was: > [@](#): > > You seriously don’t think some lawyers go around looking to convince people to let them sue on their behalf? …and I may have confused people when I said those ads don’t have to comply with Rule 7.3. They don’t, but they’re not breaking it in any event. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/56 "2012-09-13T14:46:17Z")
Around here, we are bombarded with TV ads from a legal firm called “James Sokolove LLC”). From the fine print, I gather that this Sokolove solicits clients, then hooks you up with a law firm that does the suit, then he gets a cut of whatever settlement is granted. It must be lucrative arrangement-he’s always telling s how he can help you. But is it legal? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/57 "2012-09-13T14:54:57Z")
Yes. In fact, it’s essentially a legal requirement for multistate class actions because whichever firms are actually litigating the case are unlikely to be admitted to practice in all the jurisdictions where their clients are. If this Sokolove firm is actually soliciting, then it’s a violation of the bar rules, but I don’t think that’s what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/58 "2012-09-15T17:39:44Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Tom Clancy had a plane **crashed by a crazed airline pilot** , who murdered a copilot and faked out the controllers. The idea that hijackers might do the same thing was, if raised, not taken seriously; after all, **those clowns can’t fly a plane**! (Pity no one thought of the obvious rejoinder: “they don’t have to fly it very well, do they?” > [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Odd, given that in 1994 it [happened in real life.](http://www.damninteresting.com/aches-on-a-plane/) Almost. The hijacker was intent upon crashing the plane into FedEx headquarters but was overpowered by the flight crew, despite the horrifying near-fatal injuries he had inflicted upon them. That was also a pilot, though not for Fed-Ex (one of his grievances), so, no. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742/59 "2012-09-16T03:42:45Z")
Whatever happened to the “supervening criminal act” as being a bar to negligence under the proximate cause component? IOW, however the airlines might have fucked up, the terrorists, by intentionally murdering and hijacking, were so disproportionately responsible for what happened to make the airlines’ bullshit little policies pale in comparison. Therefore, the terrorists are 100% responsible. That used to be the law. Why did that change? If a passenger was peeling his apple with a box cutter and the knife slipped and cut his seat mate, then we can talk about the airline policy. For criminal acts? Nonsense. Should be dismissed on a summary judgment motion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-aa-and-ua-negligently-responsible-for-the-9-11-attacks-on-the-wtc/633742.md?page=2)