Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA SYD Passengers Taken To Hospital  
User currently offlineBd1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Australian press are reporting ambulances took a number of passengers to Sydney hospitals after the UA flight hit clear air turbulence.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9192914%255E1702,00.html

BD1959

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2602 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3297 times:

I wonder when the lawsuits will start....




Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineCmckeithen From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Yeah. Its like the lady that spilled Coffee in her lap. Well lady 1) you should have known the coffee was hot 2) why would you put something hot in btwn your legs 3) READ the CAUTION CONTENTS HOT label. It's there for a reason.


You fly and oops we had turbulence...lets sue.


User currently offlineFutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2602 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Im also reminded of the lady who sued McDonald's for making her fat....

Some people just amaze me

Anyway, sounds like they will be ok which is good news.

[Edited 2004-04-05 02:21:44]


Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3074 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3048 times:


I dont think I've ever heard someone sue because of Clear Air Turbulence. They wouldn't have grounds to considering the number of warnings you get to keep your seatbelt fastened and move about the cabin carefully.

The bigger problem would be the people using the toilet at the time they hit the turbulence. That would be a messy problem!!!!


User currently offlineBd1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

SMH states:

A passenger from San Diego, named only as Lauren, said passengers who had been standing or who had been in the toilets had fallen and hit their heads in the incident.

"[We were] sitting there and there was just a huge jolt and it kind of lifted ... seats in the back and it was just kind of major turbulence for a while after that," Lauren told ABC radio.

"[For] people that were in the bathroom, it was a really bad jolt."


- Guess it would have been messy too!!

BD1959



User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2998 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

Sorry to go off-topic here, but some people here need to relax before jumping to conclusions about lawsuits that most likely will never happen.

Cmckeithen, you should read more about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit before you make quick judgments. You'll learn that (1) the coffee was much hotter than it should have been--i.e., much hotter than coffee is typically served--and (2) the old woman suffered severe burns all over her inner thighs and genitalia--by all accounts, it was extremely painful. It was really quite appalling--no one has any reason to expect injuries of that magnitude from a normal cup of coffee, even if it accidentally spills in one's lap. McDonald's was in the wrong, and the whole purpose of tort law is to compensate the victims of such wrongs.

In the McDonald's fat case, by contrast, there was no evidence that McDonald's had done anything wrong. Sure enough, the lawsuit was thrown out. Score another for our justice system. It's not perfect, but it's better than most of what's out there.

Back to the topic, in this case, I doubt anyone will sue, and if they do, I doubt they will be successful--unless it turns out, for example, that the pilot or dispatcher chose to disregard warnings of severe turbulence, or that the crew left the seatbelt sign off despite indications of rough air ahead--neither of which seems likely.



Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlinePER744 From Australia, joined Mar 2003, 405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

It's intl travel, and I believe under the Warsaw Convention the passengers can't sue as it's not an 'accident' (as per the DVT cases that have been thrown out)

User currently offlineAmwest25 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

"McDonald's was in the wrong, and the whole purpose of tort law is to compensate the victims of such wrongs."

Sounds like typical lawyer talk.


User currently offlineBofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

Air France 747
September 1996: One of the airline's planes was caught up in severe turbulence near Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Three of the 206 passengers were seriously injured, and one later died. Some of the TV-monitors fell down from the roof...




User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Any explanation as to what is Fin Air Turbulence? ?:-


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2998 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

PER744, "accident" under the Warsaw Convention has been interpreted as "an injury caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to the passenger." Although DVT was deemed not to fall into that category, injuries from turbulence almost certainly would--that is, IF the airline were found negligent (which I doubt, as I mentioned above).

Amwest25, it's easy to criticize lawyers...until you need one yourself.  Big grin



Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
MSP: 11 Taken To Hospital posted Tue Aug 22 2006 19:27:14 by AsstChiefMark
How Are Loads On The UA Flight From SFO To Syd? posted Sat Jun 16 2001 21:32:34 by 777-500ER
UA Rehires Charlie Trotter To Redo C/F Class Meals posted Fri Jan 12 2007 04:06:00 by 777fan
UA Sells LON-JFK To Delta posted Wed Aug 23 2006 12:49:47 by 764
UA Denver Promotion- Response To DL SLC Buildup? posted Sat Aug 19 2006 20:13:04 by SlcDeltaRUmd11
UA Applies For Service To Qatar posted Thu Aug 10 2006 11:30:20 by Pbb152
More UA Pilots Saying 'no' To Channel 9? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 20:24:19 by FiveMileFinal
UA Start The Move To XM Satellite Radio Programing posted Tue Feb 28 2006 00:30:22 by Unitedtristar
UA SYD-MEL Question posted Thu Jan 26 2006 00:01:37 by Skycruiser
UA Flight Attendants Object To Plan Confirmation posted Wed Jan 11 2006 23:30:02 by KarlB737