But wouldn’t the court have to decide whether it is frivolous or not?
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.
Are you sure about this? I think many of those ads have the actual lawyer talking to the camera.
Lawyers can advertise themselves, and many do, but the “800-PAIN” type ads are not run by lawyers.
A workaround, then?
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.
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.)
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?”
Odd, given that in 1994 it happened in real life. 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.
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.
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.
Not sure what you’re getting at here, sorry.
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.
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!
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.
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:
…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.
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?
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.
That was also a pilot, though not for Fed-Ex (one of his grievances), so, no.
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.