Were AA and UA negligently responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC?

[Procrustus]

@somepumpkin

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).

The OP decided to slam lawyers at the same time he posed his “interesting question.” It’s all fair game.

[Omar_Little]

@Procrustus

Right, that’s why it’s not appropriate for this forum.

What forum do you think you are in? It’s clearly appropriate for the IMHO forum.

I’m glad that many think that all lawyers are only tools for their clients to use…great. Your opinion is duly noted.

Now, can we please get back to the primary point of the OP.

Do you think that the airlines were negligent in the events that led to 911?

[Omar_Little]

@Oakminster

I’ve debunked that erroneous assertion.

If you think so. :rolleyes:

[Acsenray]

@Omar_Little

Do you think that the airlines were negligent in the events that led to 911?

And you just want baseless speculation? You don’t want to establish any standard for negligence? You don’t want to refer to any particular standards for a duty of care or whether that duty was breached and whether that breach was the proximate cause of the harm?

You don’t even want to at least set forth the argument that the plaintiffs are making on these points?

Just pure gut reactions based on preconceived notions?

[Omar_Little]

@Acsenray

And you just want baseless speculation? You don’t want to establish any standard for negligence? You don’t want to refer to any particular standards for a duty of care or whether that duty was breached and whether that breach was the proximate cause of the harm?

You don’t even want to at least set forth the argument that the plaintiffs are making on these points?

Just pure gut reactions based on preconceived notions?

All that and more.

I’m not interested in a debate, otherwise I would have put this in that forum. Just interested in people’s opinions. If you want to back up your opinions with legal standards, great, if you don’t want to that’s fine as well.

[bup]

Well, we haven’t heard the evidence they plan to present. That’s the fairest answer.

I haven’t heard anything in any coverage of the bombings that makes me think there is evidence that the airlines were negligent, either.

But we haven’t heard the evidence yet.

[Ravenman]

I don’t think the airlines should be found guilty.

However, I have not heard opening arguments from the lawyers of both sides. Also, some of what I’ve read about the 9/11 attacks may be inadmissible under the rules of evidence, so I need to get a judge to rule on what facts I may consider in my deliberations. Nor have I been sworn to reach my decision based only on the law and the facts presented to me, upon penalty of law. I also have not received precise instructions from someone with a law degree on what burden of proof I’m supposed to use when forming my opinion.

So, I have an opinion, but I guess I’m totally unqualified to speak about it on an Internet message board. I hope someone doesn’t sue me for defamation because I didn’t consult an attorney licensed to practice in Washington, D.C. before I typed this post.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Ravenman

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.

Here’s Oakminster’s new ad campaign. (video)

[Eureka]

@Omar_Little

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.

My inclination is that the airlines probably weren’t negligently responsible, but your analogy is wrong. Suing the auto makers would be like suing Boeing, not the airlines. And I think the major airlines have a voice in the level of security found at airports, and probably argued for standards which made travel more convenient for flyers, rather than safer at some point in time.

So I think a court trial to discuss these issues in greater depth is reasonable.

[tdn]

@Omar_Little

Do you think that the airlines were negligent in the events that led to 911?

Years before that, I got a big knife past airport security at Logan. It was part of a BBQ set that I was giving as a Christmas gift. Security acknowledged that I had it and let me through anyway.

That’s pretty serious. But that was a problem with security and that particular airport. The airlines themselves had nothing to do with it.

[tdn]

@Eureka

Suing the auto makers would be like suing Boeing, not the airlines.

Except that airlines generally don’t manufacture their own planes.

[Omar_Little]

@Eureka

My inclination is that the airlines probably weren’t negligently responsible, but your analogy is wrong. Suing the auto makers would be like suing Boeing, not the airlines.

Looks like Boeing was included in the original lawsuit. I have no idea if they still are:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_post-9/11_world=complete_911_timeline_9_11_related_lawsuits&timeline=complete_911_timeline

March 18, 2008: WTC Developer Wants over $12 Billion Damages for 9/11 It is revealed that Larry Silverstein, the developer of Ground Zero, is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from airlines and airport security companies for the attacks on 9/11. Silverstein sought the damages in a claim filed in 2004, alleging that the companies failed to prevent the hijackers from taking over the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center buildings. The size of his claim was previously unknown, but is now revealed at a status conference in the US District Court in Manhattan. [New York Times, 3/27/2008] Of the $12.3 billion sought, $8.4 billion would be to replace the property destroyed in the attacks, and the other $3.9 billion would cover lost income and expenses associated with renting the new buildings. Companies named in the suit include American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Boeing, and the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), which manages Logan Airport in Boston, from where the two planes that hit the WTC took off. [CNN, 3/27/2008] Silverstein’s case is consolidated with similar, earlier lawsuits by other property owners and some families of 9/11 victims. Silverstein is by far the biggest of the claimants. A lawyer for the airlines says that if Silverstein wins, it could push the total claims beyond the amount of insurance the airlines and security companies have available. Silverstein, the CEO and president of Silverstein Properties, only signed the 99-year lease on the World Trade Center six weeks before 9/11 (see July 24, 2001). He has already won nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments stemming from the attacks (see May 23, 2007).

[Twoflower]

@tdn

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.

The thing is, this statement is not true; it’s what Condi Rice wanted us to believe.

Airline security could have and should have been improved in response to the known threat that Bin Laden wanted to hijack planes. How much the airlines themselves should have been responsible for that, I can’t say. But I think it’s a legitimate question to resolve in court.

[tdn]

@Twoflower

The thing is, this statement is not true; it’s what Condi Rice wanted us to believe.

True, but it really wasn’t in the public consciousness at the time. How much the airlines knew about it is, as you said, yet to be determined.

[Ellen_Cherry]

@Procrustus

The OP decided to slam lawyers at the same time he posed his “interesting question.” It’s all fair game.

@Oakminster

Further, I am not derailing your thread. You assert that this litigation is a “money grab by lawyers”. I’ve debunked that erroneous assertion.

Focusing on the “money grab by lawyers” to the extent that it drowns out all other aspects of this case is derailing the thread; it has overwhelmed most other discussion. True, the OP did offer it as his opinion of why such a suit is being brought, but he is also inviting other interpretations and discussion per this forum.

Clinging like a dog with a bone to this one aspect is drowning out the main thrust of the thread. So either drop it completely, explore the ethics of the situation in a new thread, or take your beef to the Pit. Your choice.

[Szlater]

Isn’t the whole point of having a legal system based on trials so that the merits of a case can be argued and decided in a consistent way?

If you think you have been wronged you take it before the court and it is decided in an impartial manner.

I don’t understand, not being a legal professional nor plaintiff or defendent in any case, what the hostility is towards the legal profession and civil court system is based on. It’s almost as if some people think that the arguments over liabilities should be so clear cut that they can be decided by joe bloggs over coffee at the breakfast table or whilst taking a dump with no more than the information in the newspaper.

I don’t understand what the memories of the flight crews has to do with the merits of the case.

[Omar_Little]

@Szlater

I don’t understand, not being a legal professional nor plaintiff or defendent in any case, what the hostility is towards the legal profession and civil court system is based on.

<snip>

I don’t understand what the memories of the flight crews has to do with the merits of the case.

I guess we could seperately argue the whole issue of tort reform. OF which I think this case could be an example of support for.

With regard to the memories of the flight crews, if you are arguing that United and American were negligent, then I would expect that the argument would follow that the flight crews were negligent in their duties, which resulted in Mr. Silverman’s building being imploded. Seriously?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I don’t think the suit is entirely ridiculous on its face. Owners of aircraft are subject to strict liability for damage to things on the ground (whether people or property), though not to passengers. Flying an aircraft is (legally, not statistically) a dangerous undertaking, and the law generally requires those who undertake dangerous activities to restore those injured by the activities even when they aren’t at fault.

I do find it disturbing that the lessees are apparently trying to double-dip, since they’ve already received $4 billion from insurance.

I assume the following is not in violation of the preceding mod note since it’s a purely factual answer.

@Ravenman

So all those ads on daytime TV for “1-800-INJURY” and “1-877-WHIPLASH” comply with this standard for professional conduct, right?

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.

[Acsenray]

@Omar_Little

if you are arguing that United and American were negligent, then I would expect that the argument would follow that the flight crews were negligent in their duties

That would be a fallacious line of reasoning. The airline can be negligent without any particular employee being negligent. That’s why you have to start with what “negligent” actually means:

1. Was there a duty of care? What was the standard?

2. Was there a breach of the duty?

3. Was the breach the proximate cause of harm?

4. Was there harm?

In order for there to be negligence, the answer has to be “yes” to all four questions, and the answers might not be the same for both the airline and the flight crews.

[bup]

@Szlater

I don’t understand, not being a legal professional nor plaintiff or defendent in any case, what the hostility is towards the legal profession and civil court system is based on. It’s almost as if some people think that the arguments over liabilities should be so clear cut that they can be decided by joe bloggs over coffee at the breakfast table or whilst taking a dump with no more than the information in the newspaper.

It’s not all civil disagreements, it’s frivolous litigation. The concept exists; our civil court system recognizes such cases exist. Nobody here made it up.