I am wondering when the mighty US legal industry will begin to flex its muscles-seems to me we have at least 6000 victims whose relative will be launching lawsuits soon. As I see it, the parties to be sued include:
-the flying schools that trained the terrorists “they should have known better!”
-the port authorty of NYC (should have made the towers stronger)
-the airlines involved (should have had better locks on the cockpit doors!)
-MASSPORT (Boston)-they should have identified and arrested the terrorists
-Avis car rentals-they should have recognized the terrorists
-OBL himself (but I don’t see the logic of suing him)
So, potentially a bonanza! And enough litigation to keep everybody happy! So when does thefun start?
A very few such suits have already been filed (including at least one against bin Laden).
However, within the first couple of days after the attacks–the same day the first suit was filed–the American Association of Trial Lawyers (I belive) issued a statement calling for restraint among their members.
I’m sure there will be a growing list of such suits (and, I suppose, we could set up a pool to guess when they hit the 100 or 1,000 mark), but there will not, initially, be a mad rush to “cash in” on the situation via torts.
tomndebb wrote
Hmmmm. During the same time period, there was restraint among the members of the criminal community as well. Coincidence?
I’d like to see a lawsuit. Not just because it would be hilarious to see someone do something that stupid, but then we could see the U.S.'s evidence against Bin Laden which they’ve been so reluctant to show.
Um … have we forgotten the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, the $15 billion “rescue plan” for the airline industry? In addition to helping out airlines directly, it is also a tort reform rule imposed by the federal government on the states.
The Act does two things. It limits the total liability of the airline industry for claims resulting from the crash of the four airliners hijacked on September 11 to the airline’s insurance coverage. It also provides an alternative, non-litigation process for victims who suffered personal injuries or death (or their estates). Under this process, victims may get some kind of compensation quickly – but only if they give up their right to sue the airlines.
Any action concerning the World Trade Center attacks must (pursuant to the Act) be brought in the federal court for the Southern District of New York, under New York state law. No expert I, but I believe that means a litigant could request punitive damages if they could prove that the airlines acted with “conscious indifference” by failing to prevent the hijackings’ damage.
I’m not sure I agree that the airlines could be shown to be indifferent at all. Even if I accept that the airlines could have improved security such that before the attacks we had the kind of screening we get today, and if I accept that such a level of security would have stopped the terrorist actions, I don’t follow why people believe it is the airlines — not the airports, or the government, or all three together — who were responsible for not improving security.
In short - I’m not sure a lawsuit has such potential for big numbers - at least as against the airlines - based on the limiting effect of the new law.
- Rick