In laymens terms AA and UA as well as Boeing the WTC and other airlines where responsible for the hijackers getting into the cockpit.
Apparently, the defendents negligently misused thier crystal ball to determine how, what, where, and when.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Is this lawyer sueing the CIA for failing to come up with the intelligence to stop the attacks? No. Is this lawyer suing the FBI because they had agents warning of suspicious activity and did nothing to investigate. No. Is he suing the Bin Laden Company whose proceed enable the 9-11 attacks? No.
Instead he is suing two companies that lost employees in defence of said victims. Companies who were victims themselves. Companies who's employees where told by the Government what policies should be followed to keep thier charges safe. HE SUEING THE TARGET!! He suing the manufacturer of the PLANE?!
I am sorry to any lawyers in this forum, but this kind of twisted logic makes me sick. This kind of dispicable display of greed on the part of the lawyer is ridiculous.
Sometimes terrrible things happen to good people. Its a shame when it happens. But negligence is not to blame when men calculate and plot and plan to exploit every weakness they can find in a system. Its negligence when you know what could happen and do not prepare for it. No rational, sane compassionate human being could possibly have imagined the horrendous acts of 9-11. If they could they where of like mind with the hijackers.
If this lawyer thinks those in charge should have known about the tactics of 9-11, then I challege him to dissern what the next terrorist attack will be. If it is so logical, he should have no trouble telling us all where the next attack will happen.
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3153 times:
It is the actions of lawyers like this that threaten our freedoms in the US. Because companies and governmental agencies fear liability and the potential catasthrophic judgements that can be awarded they protect themselves with blanket policies...ie..."you can't watch airplanes from here..." "You can't loiter anywhere near the airport..."
No one honestly envisioned this type of attack prior to 9-11, but of course in the aftermath everyone claimed that "someone should have known."
We should be concentrating on fixing the problems that face us, especially security. But instead we chase liability and try to pin blame on someone.
Captaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 58 Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3122 times:
B757300, what is it that tells you this lawsuit will get laughed out of court? Sad thing is, while we all look at this and roll our eyes, myself included, according to the law, there could in fact be a case here. It could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that if the airlines had taken such and such a measure, this wouldn't happen, same with Boeing, etc. It's the sad reality of the American legal system, whereby any portion of the blame can get the above in serious trouble. Seems to me this lawyer could in fact have a very strong case, unfortunately, and that's no laughing matter.
"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3101 times:
Some (no, most) plantiff's Lawyers will literally look up names in the phone book to sue when big cases come up. That is because just about every business is tied to every other in some way. What they care about is how much money they can extort out of a business, not how much actual harm was done by them. It does not matter if the case is laughed out of court. These sharks want their victims to settle. - because there is always the risk of the court taking the case and giving them a moron jury. 99 times out of 100 this won't happen but the 1 time it does is when you get an outrageous verdict that could drive you out of business. Even the fees from your own attorneys, combined with all of the time you are forced to waste, could be a major loss to your busisness. This kind of behavior from lawyers is about as newsworthy as some "great new deal" advertised by a used car salesman.
A question for Europeans - is the continental, Napoleonic-code descended legal system as crazy as the system we have in the US? Do your countries squander as much of your country's resources in the legal system as we do? Is your system as arbitrary and unpredictable as ours is? I have always had the impression that we in the US have the worst civil law system in the industrialized world. But perhaps I am speaking out of ignorance, so I have to ask.... Is it really this bad everywhere else as well, or is this only an American folly?
Flyboy36y From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3039 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3085 times:
B757300, what is it that tells you this lawsuit will get laughed out of court? Sad thing is, while we all look at this and roll our eyes, myself included, according to the law, there could in fact be a case here. It could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that if the airlines had taken such and such a measure, this wouldn't happen, same with Boeing, etc. It's the sad reality of the American legal system, whereby any portion of the blame can get the above in serious trouble. Seems to me this lawyer could in fact have a very strong case, unfortunately, and that's no laughing matter.
Actually, the reasonable doubt standard does not apply in this case as it is civil. Another, lower, standard is used called "proponderance of the evidence". Still, it is not enouh to prove that if there was more security 9/11 would not happen. The question is was iy reasonable to take those added security measures. I don't think it was, or is.
UALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2980 times:
My assertion is that the federal goverment should be named in this suit as well if the laywers argument is valid.
1) He is suing the WTC leasing company but not the Pentagon
2) Intellegence information that was not acted on or passed on to the people who could tighten security was not passed on. (FBI)
3) WHO has deeper pockets than the Federal goverment? They are as much to blame for policies and negligence as Boeing, the NY/NJ Port Authority, UA and AA.
Should the NYPD and FDNY be sued as well? If not for their inablility to plan and prepare for this the lawyers clients loved ones would have lived. Gross negligence on the part of the City of NY to not know that this was going to happen and stop it.
Take this laywers argument to its logical conclusion and it makes not sense. But he convienently stops well short of the "Logical Conclusion" precisely because it makes no sense.
I feel terrrible for the families that where duped into this argument by a guy out to buy half of Florida with his cut of the settlement.
KRIC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 242 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2972 times:
Interesting that in the eyes such lawyers, the burden of responsibility for events like this (or the Fat Kids v. McDonald's fiasco) usually has much less to do with who actually might be responsible for any damages than with who has the most money. What a crock! Cloudy is exactly right -- firms and individual lawyers that pursue cases like this are little more than high-rent extortionists. It is absolutely criminal.
Perhaps the biggest shame is: where are the honest, hardworking, ethical attorneys (that I know are out there), denouncing these clowns as the greedy pigs that they are. Cloudy is exactly right -- firms and individual lawyers that pursue cases like this are little more than high-rent extortionists. It is absolutely criminal
There was another thread on the forum about what would make people move away from the USA....our asinine, out of control tort system running roughshod over common sense and personal responsibility will do it for me. Unfortunately nothing will ever be done about it ...the trial lawyers' lobby is among the most powerful in every legislative body, and what were most lawmakers before going into politics but..lawyers? The inmates are truly running the asylum, folks.
USAir330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 790 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
I don't think the airlines should be blamed. That lawyer is Bull$hitting and just wants to make his money. The pilots of all 4 planes ( R.I.P ) were just doing what they have been told to do incase of terroist taking over a plane. If anyone should be responsible for the acts of 9-11 it should be the people that did it and planned it. Not the victims!!!
Saintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2800 times:
Cloudy,
Regretfully the 'Sue em' practice is becoming the norm in the UK. Even if you have done nothing wrong it is often cheaper to settle out of court before the lawyers get their teeth into it.
Saying that, it is often people who have seen huge awards being made that are getting the lawyers involved in the first place so maybe they are not always to blame. They don't discourage it though.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, RR: 74 Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2702 times:
Big US companies are now having to set aside a huge annual litigation contingency fees... I think it should be the lawyers that are blamed (even sued) for causing the current economic downturn as the cash would have been able to be used for more useful allocations...
Yes, lawyers seem to be prosecuting anyone who's got money, except for themselves.... They are beginning to hinder capitalism while being traitors to the socialist cause !
Once you have a jury, it becomes a rich vs. poor situation in a lot of personal litigation cases. If I live in the US, I better have a non-recourse trust account in case I sneeze on someone by accident and he wants to sue me for "emotional damages" because he fears getting the SARS so he stayed isolated at home due to fear, and he is now getting obese because he thought the only way to get food without infecting others is by pizza home delivery... (he's also suing Pizza Hut and Pizza Express)...
Bizzare ? Well, ask a lawyer if this case is possible...
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Glenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2681 times:
Just some small shot lawyer wanting to get his name in the papers, become famous and charge more. Probably so far has been unable to succesfully get a Paedophile or Rapist off on a technicality yet
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
I think it's safe to say that much of what is being discusses here has been covered in other threads.
I think it may suprise some of you that in my legal opinion, there is some merit in this suit. And that the victims will get recovery...albeit not the horrendous amounts being sought.
Very clearly, new precedent can be set.
Personally, I hold both AA and UA liable as well for different reasons. I don't need to argue them here.
It is interesting to note that in the UA case, I believe (I havent' read their filing) that many suits may have been discharged during bankcruptcy.
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2969 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2614 times:
Greg, you would say that.
"First thing, let's kill all the lawyers"
-Shakespear
There isn't any merit to this case, as AA and UA followed all the recommendations at that time for security, and how to deal with a hijacking once it was in process. I understand the "reasonable person" principle does not apply here as it's a civil case, but I think AA and UA were nevertheless taking reasonable precautions that any other airline would take. It could have been any airline.
No, this case falls along the lines of the old American principle, "if something bad happens, someone is to blame and I am going to find that person and sue them".
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2584 times:
My message was fair and tempered.
Yours is not.
I would hardly expect some computer guy to understand the finer parts of law, or any of the many nuances of negligence--either gross or contributary. It was only my legal opinion. I was not a personal attack on anyone or their ideals.
Should I have questions why my our Linux servers don't connect over Citrix---I will defer to your better judgement.
Oh..by the way..it appears Shakespeare actually wrote very little that was attributed to him. It's become proper form not to quote him.
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2514 times:
Actually you learn very quickly....negligence almost ALWAYS exists. That why you hire lawyers...to find and prove it...juries (or litigation) can decide if the case has merit. Every recovery for damages has either been negotiated or awarded (in a few case they are mandated by judges). You make it sound like lawyers somehow write themselves blank checks.
There is no crime, no shame, and no stigma with relatives seeking damages for actions due to the negligence of common carriers.
My comments as original stated, stand.
I have no idea why you are taking this opinion as some sort of personal attack.
It is only my legal opinion.
FrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1201 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
Although I think it's frivalous, they may have a legal point here. The important part to keep in mind is that the standard is different for a civil case. REASONABLE DOUBT applies to CRIMINAL cases. PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE applies to CIVIL. In civil court, as a matter of law, the side that has the most convincing evidence has a preponderance of the evidence and should prevail.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
I agree with you that there needs to be checks and balances. Awarding damages for things like false arrest, or falsifying MX records, or knowingly building a defective product. That's one thing.
But awarding someone $10,000,000 for something egregious like swallowing a step ladder or sticking their finger in the wall socket are what everyone is complaining about.
I don't feel that 1) people should be rewarded for their own incompetence/stupidity/cash grabs-it encourages further imitation behavior and 2)people should be allowed to pass the blame onto others as a result of above #1.
You know why lawn mowers have, printed in huge red letters on them DO NOT STICK YOUR FOOT OR HAND UNDER THE BLADE WHILE THE ENGINE IS RUNNING?
Because someone, somewhere actually did it. Instead of using a little common sense (geez...there's a large steel blade undre there that can slice my foot like a machete through a loaf of Wonder Bread, I bettre not put my foot there), they actually sued, and because of creepy lawyers-and smart people getting out of jury duty-they won.
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2969 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2473 times:
I think the real target here, if anyone was sued, would be the FAA. They allowed the same lax industry standards for every airline. The did not discourage the hiring of security companies filled by flunkies. But I doubt you can sue the federal government for much, if at all. (I know you can only sue the state of Texas, where I live, for $250,000 tops). So the attorneys will choose to go after someone who has money, i.e., AA and UA. Despite the fact that their security was probably no more negligent than any other airline out there. So, how is this not a cash grab?
One other thing, billions of dollars were donated to charity after 9/11, so where is the piece of the pie for these people that are suing? They should have gotten some of that money.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2969 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2462 times:
One other thing, since you don't have email on your profile:
I have no idea why you are taking this opinion as some sort of personal attack.
It is only my legal opinion.
I'm not taking it as a personal attack, believe me. I just don't agree with the people doing it. It's nothing against you at all. You are on my respected users list, btw.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Glenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2445 times:
Personally, I hold both AA and UA liable as well for different reasons. I don't need to argue them here
Well why stop there, lets hold the passengers to blame as well for not trying to stop the hijacking. And while we are at it, anybody who photographed the aircraft at any point. All as ludicrous as suing the manufactuer. Yhere is something inherently wrong with all this.
Maybe we should sue the lawyers who didn't sue in the begining to outlaw carrying Hijackers.
Sheesh, no wonder this world is stupid. It's run by idiots.
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2428 times:
Ok...although it does not change my thoughts on the subject, I apologize if my tone is less than neutral.
After all...I am paid to argue.
Matt D:
That same award that cost Toro $10M probably also made lawmowers have a safety switch that locks the blade when it tips over or the operator releases the handle. Punitive damages have a strong bearing on product safety.
If you don't believe that...look what has happened at Firestone.
25 Matt D: I understand what you are saying Greg. But comparing Toro to Firestone is not an apples to apples comparison. Hitting Firestone with punitive WAS a go
26 MidnightMike: Blame the families, they are the ones that are actually bringing the lawsuit against the airlines.
27 Greg: Clearly, this is a sensitive issue with very divergent viewpoints. For me, the discussion has run it's course. I have no further comments on the speci
28 Searpqx: Greg - while I still disagree with you, I've got to say that you're calm and reasoned responses and arguments have moved you up a notch in my view. If
29 CX747: This should be thrown out of court immediately. Then the lawyers and their clients should have to pay all court costs including the defendants.
30 Ual767ord: It is sad that these men died without will and now there blamed for it.
31 Cloudy: LH526 said.... So, next time someone is being shot in a murder, you don't sue the murderer or the assasin, but rather sue the manufacturer of the weap
32 KRIC777: In Greg's (and other lawyers') defense on this, he is correct in the sense that the attorney's / plaintiff's in this case are doing nothing wrong in t
33 OzarkD9S: Let's blame the parents of the hijackers for having the bad taste to reproduce. I saw a documentary on the WTC disaster recently, and they talked abou
34 ChrisNH: In this case, United and American represent wheel-less ambulances that these lawyers are chasing. Famous for blaming anyone and anything with deep poc
35 UALPHLCS: Greg points out something interesting here. He said that negligence always exists. That means negligence must be a fact of life. There are an infinant
36 SWALUVFA: Sad thing is....its all about "ker-ching ker-ching $$$." People will be heartless and ruthless to make a quick buck. If I were a family that was being
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 2257 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
