I personally think it's awful that people are going to try and get a lot of money out of this. It's not like Boeing could have designed their planes to withstand the impact of the crashes, or if AA or UA could have trained their pilots to figure out if the terrorists were really going to land or suicide bomb something.
live forever and stay beautiful,
"[He] knew everything about literature, except how to enjoy it." - Yossarian, Catch 22
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3096 times:
How is it possible to sue the owners of the World Trade Center for a plane hitting it ? Er, its a 3 million foot high building, that can't exactly dodge out of the way. You might as well sue an airport if a plane crashes on the runway, for having put the runway in the way !
Not to be funny or anything, but how do American lawyers sleep at night ?
Mexicana757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 2961 posts, RR: 30 Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3092 times:
I agree with you hole courtney. Why is UAL, AA, Boeing and NY port authority getting sued for. They didnt do this. How where they suppose to know this was going to happen. Is it the fault that this happened?? NO! This judge is on crack!
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
How can it be in anyone's interests to sue the owners of a building that got hit by a hijacked plane ? How can the owners of the building possibly have any responsiblity for that ? Clients are advised by lawyers as to who may bear responsibility and thus liability for damages they have suffered. This seems to me to be an extremely cynical and mercenary action by unscrupulous people, who in my opinion should feel very ashamed of themselves.
P.S. on a lighter side and completely off topic, what happened to the group of heftier persons who sued McDonalds for making them fat ? As a large economy size person myself, I was most interested in the outcome of that little episode - ka-CHING !
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
Before we begin yet another lawyer bashing thread - While I don't agree with this lawsuit, or the judge, and I rarely agree w/ Greg's logic in why these types of suits are ok - he is totally correct - the source of these suits isn't the lawyers, although they undoubtedly benefit (massively) from them, it's the people that are looking for someone to blame. And that is a result of our society, which has done away w/ the concept of individual responsibility, and promoted the concept of everyman as victim.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
Contrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2991 times:
Let's see if I have this right: A bunch of screwball idiots hijack some planes (against the law), crash them into buildings killing a lot of innocent people (also against the law); and the people who manufactured the planes, the people who owned the planes, and the people who owned the buildings the screwball idiots flew into were negligent??
I suggest we take up a collection to let the people behind these lawsuits move to another country. Someone form a committee, pick the country (I have a couple of suggestions), and I'll be the first contributor for some one-way tickets.
4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2857 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2937 times:
Could someone summarize Greg's apparently deleted post? I missed it.
And that is a result of our society, which has done away w/ the concept of individual responsibility
True. But the whole story still nauseates me. If the US does not enact some sort of reasonable lawsuit reform, we are doomed. How can anyone be expected to build anything, much less innovate, when their work may be rewarded by an absurd lawsuit like this.
I'd support a "personal responsibility", "assumed common sense", or "it is an imperfect world and life comes with risks" amendment to the constitution.
B777FA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 246 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2932 times:
Totally ridiculous...But then again when it comes to suing nothing surprises me anymore...(Remember the Macdonalds lawsuit when a woman sued because she spilt her coffee on herself and it was too hot!)
Why not open the door to sue the Saudi government,after all some of the hijackers where from there OR the US govnt,the CIA and FBI failed to uncover the plot!!!!
Korg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
So People wants to blame or sue UAL,AA, and Boeing? Are those company's right now in a position to be sued? They picked the only two airlines that are having trouble and Boeing that's loosing a lot too. I get the feeling Boeing is going to go out of making civilian aircrafts, and UA and AA will just go bankruptcy. Maybe that will teach people a lesson when they see all those jobless employees? or am I just talking to the wall?
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
It's not like Boeing could have designed their planes to withstand the impact of the crashes
No... but it is like Boeing/Airlines/FAA could have mandated that the cockpit doors be reinforced.
As the doors were at the time of the hijackings, any 10yr-old child could have easily burst through them. They were designed in such a manner for the sake of pilots getting out in an emergency... never the thought of anyone getting in. Some would call that negligence on behalf of the parties involved in the doors' creation and/or utilization. Not to say that I agree with the suits in and of themselves, but those are some of the fundamental principals.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4741 posts, RR: 42 Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2749 times:
My post just stipulated that lawyers work on behalf of clients. We do not work in a vacuum. We do not represent ourselves. People hire us.
This isnt entirely true. The TV is full of commercials stating things like "Did you hurt your toe walking into the kitchen?, did you know that you don't have to suffer this, someone else must be to blame, call us today for your free consultation..."
Lawyers encourage these sorts of frivolous lawsuits, and if you look at the settlement figures, and who gets what % of the money, the client "who's best interest" you respresent, usually gets far less of the pot than you do.
I appreciate that you have a right to work, so advertising your skills is all part and parcel of the job, but to suggest you have no part in it is bollocks
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2731 times:
The crux of the judge's ruling is that the type of risk was foreseeable. I strongly disagree. He has had the benefit of two years of hindsight. The realm of the possible has gotten much bigger in our minds.
On 9/10/2001, I think that the events of the following day were outside of our imagination let alone what anyone could foresee.
If the judge could contemplate that kind of risk in September 2001, he is in the wrong business.
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2722 times:
Unfortunately, sueing a "Sovereign" (independent nation) is a rather difficult task, and it's next to impossible to collect.
Not to back up the plaintiff's argument, but if the owners of the WTC (the NY/NJ Port Authority) were negligent in training for an evacuation of the towers, then they may have grounds for a lawsuit.
However, against Boeing, AA, and UA, since it has always been FAA policy to "do exactly what the hijacker says," there was hardly any reason to reinforce the cockpit door. I can't see how UA, AA, and especially Boeing could be held responsible.
Okay, maybe UA and AA vis-a-vis security, but they contracted security out to a certified firm that specialized in airport security. But even then, the weapons used to take over the planes were legal to take on board prior to 9/11! That's the great myth of 9/11: Security didn't fail that day. Counter-terrorism failed by telling us to not fight back.
How about sueing the Customs Office and INS? They're the ones who let the terrorists in the country and run around doing whatever they wanted. Oh, wait. Same problem as Saudi...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 25 Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2645 times:
After looking up some info the the judge in this case, why am I not surprised.
Hellerstein, Alvin K.
Born 1933 in New York, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York Nominated by William J. Clinton on May 15, 1998, to a seat vacated by Louis L. Stanton; Confirmed by the Senate on October 21, 1998, and received commission on October 22, 1998.
Columbia College, B.A., 1954
Columbia Law School, J.D., 1956
Law clerk, Hon. Edmund Palmieri, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1956-1957
U.S. Army, JAG Corps, 1957-1960
Private practice, New York City, 1960-1998
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16320 posts, RR: 52 Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2606 times:
" Are those company's right now in a position to be sued? They picked the only two airlines that are having trouble and Boeing that's loosing a lot too. I get the feeling Boeing is going to go out of making civilian aircrafts, and UA and AA will just go bankruptcy"
It would not be the companies that would have to pay , it's their insurance companies.
And I think this lawsuit does not have standing, the attacks were caused by negligence of US Intelligence, the FBI, Immigration and Naturalzation for not missing oppurtunities to prevent this act.
However these agencies cannot be sued, so these folks are looking at someone who can.
I would expect legislation to be enacted by Congress to protect these companies against these lawsuits relating to 9-11-01.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4741 posts, RR: 42 Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2555 times:
They have just added NW, DL, US AND Continental to the lawsuit, stating that "This could have happened on those carriers also, but said that they were leaving Jetblue out of the lawsuit because they fly airbus"