Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13756 posts, RR: 18 Posted (15 years 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Taiwan airport, SIA, Boeing potential defendants in SQ006 crash
by Farah Abdul Rahim
Taiwan's Chiang Kai Shek International Airport is a potential defendant in a suit brought by 44 survivors of the SQ006 crash and the next of kin of those who died in the disaster.
Singapore Airlines and Boeing are the other potential defendants.
12 Singaporeans are among the 44 who are suing, including eight cabin crew members. (Oh dear)
According to American attorney Manuel R Ribbeck, who'll be representing them, eight lawsuits have been filed in the United States so far and more can be expected.
Mr Ribbeck, a partner with Nolan Law Group, is in Singapore and has met some of his Singaporean clients, including cabin crew members.
He said that the Taipei airport authorities might be a potential defendant, especially after last week's release of a factual findings report by Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council.
"Based on what we see in the report, it's too early to blame anybody but you can see that the runway was not properly closed, perhaps the lights which were not supposed to be switched on were on, the area where you were supposed to have a light to indicate a turn wasn't working properly. So, there are lots of issues that have to be addressed, regarding liability," the lawyer said.
Mr Ribbeck added that his legal team was also carrying out its own investigations into the October 31 crash, but the trial would have to wait till after the final investigation report is released at the end of the year.
The first hearing for all 44 clients will be held at the end of March in the United States.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (15 years 3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2427 times:
What the heck is this? If a terrorist blows a plan out of the sky, Boeing is blamed. When the Concorde crashed, I predicted somehow Boeing would get blamed and they did. Now these a**hole lawyers are trying to sue Boeing because a pilot turned onto a closed runway that was not properly lighted or marked?
Lets follow the advise of Shakespeare and kill all the lawyers.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8656 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (15 years 3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2420 times:
2 thoughts. It was clear from the cockpit displays that they weren't on the right runway. The copilot tried to point this out but was interrupted by the captain. Also, the runway was too short with the flight's weight to allow a safe takeoff. The outcome wouldn't have been any different if the runway had been open - in fact it might have been worse if it HAD been open if they'd run through the approach lighting at the far end just before rotation speed.
In my relatively uninformed view, nearly all the blame rests with the airline for it's well-documented lack of Cockpit Resource Management and a contributing factor being the unsubstantiated info about two CI flights on the taxiway who saw the SQ flight start it's t/off roll on the wrong runway and didn't take any action (although I can understand why, if they questioned what was happening among themselves, they must have assumed the runway had been opened and the SQ flight was acting on instructions from the tower).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
WN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2421 times:
By the way, what exactly is an "airpot?"
If I remember my Shakespeare correctly, the quote to which B757 alludes is in Henry IV and is uttered by the conspirators who seek to overthrow the king and institute anarchy. In order to facilitate anarchy, one of the co-conspirators suggests, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." The view of attorney-cide is therefore not one that Shakespeare condoned and certainly not one he proposed, but rather the first step towards creating anarchy.
To this specific case, I would like to see the evidence before I jump to any uninformed conclusions along the lines of lawyers are "bloodsuckers" and "a**holes." If the suit is as frivolous as it originally appears, it will be thrown out of court and the attorneys sanctioned. So quit freaking out.
Watewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (15 years 3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2411 times:
Perhaps you haven't seen the tasteless website these lawyers set up immediately after the crash. It was a disgusting piece of work. And guess what, it seems that everytime there's an accident, it's the lawyers who get to the accident scene first- even before the investigators and authorities. I just think that they could have handled this (and countless other incidents) in a more professional manner. It's just wrong to see lawyers at hospitals trying to talk victims' families into sueing anyone remotely involved in the case.
WN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2406 times:
Well, Watewate, don't hold out on us, what is this disgusting web site? Please attach a link so that we may all see the depths to which my profession may sink.
To be clear, I do not condone ambulance-chasing. Indeed, I wish the state bar would crack down on what is, in my view, often borders on barratry (illegal solicitation). And I whole-heartedly applaud any federal judge who uses Rule 11 to dismiss frivolous suits and sanction the attorneys responsible therefor.
But my point was simply that (I suspect) no one on this board has seen the pleadings in the case, has any idea what evidence the plaintiffs may present, or knows the legal bases for their claim. Therefore, it is inappropriate to characterize someone as a "bloodsucker" when one does not have a factual basis to support that conclusion.
Nevertheless, you may be correct and the facts may turn out that these individuals are the scum of the earth. But, if it's all the same to you, I would like to see the evidence first.
Avilitigator From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2396 times:
B757300 and Watewate,
Does killing all the lawyers include the lawyers who will be defending Boeing, Singapore Air, and all the other defendants in the suits? How about the judges who will be presiding over the cases, because they're lawyers too? If in fact you were directing your comments to particular lawyers in the particular law firm that set up that website you referred to, then you'd have a more sympathetic and understandable position. To label all lawyers as ambulance chasers that deserve to be killed is an insult to the majority of lawyers who do not practice personal injury law, and to those personal injury lawyers who allow clients to initiate first contact. As WN Boy aptly pointed out, an attorney showing up at a victim's hospital bed without a prior client relationship is illegal. Furthermore, courts have the power to sanction attorneys for filing frivolous lawsuits, and I've seen such cases in the federal appeals court where I work, so why not leave the penalties to the proper channels?
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (15 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2369 times:
Dang, no one can take a joke. I know some very nice lawyers. The only ones who should be banished are the bloodsuckers.
As for the Concorde, there should be a limit on how long the manufacturer should be held liable for an accident unless it is an obvious design flaw. If an airline doesn't take care of it aircraft or commits a maintenance oversight, the airline should be at fault, not the manufacturer.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13756 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (15 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Well, sorry for leaving this.
My stance on lawyers is this. Let them live. HOWEVER, lawyers like DAN NOLAN and his bloody NOLAN LAW GROUP should be shut down under taste and decncy. How dare he set up a website "7 hours" after the crash of SIA6!?
All the other lawyers, fine, at least they don't push it around saying "WE're here! Come to us! We'll get loads of money for you (and ourselves when you sign the contract without looking at it first)"
I abhor Dan Nolan. F word him.
Now then? How the hell did boeing get into this. Poor Boeing. Dodo! Techincal faults have been ruled out? What's the f ing point? Oh forgot. Dan Nolan decided that as it was a Boeing jet, Boeing should be sued.
Pha! Stupid Dan Nolan. Let's start a Hate campagin.
Greg From United Kingdom, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (15 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2334 times:
In most cases, counsel advises prosective clients about the legal rights they not otherwise know about. You can hardly trust SQ to settle claims with victims without representation! Lawyers are essential in settling these types of claims. Yes, there is a lot of money involved, but the victims will have considerable higher settlements if they have aggressive counsel (it's true..even after legal fees).
It's interesting to see how enthusiasts are quick to defend the airline. SQ has shown considerable negligence in this incident. The captain of that aircraft is ultimately responsible for the safety of this passengers. He blatantly ignored their safety and well being.
Also....Boeing is a party to this lawsuit because their airplane burned. It's a tactic often used since lawyers can have a field day asking why there isn't better fire suspression equipment or smoke masks, etc. on board. In most these cases, I believe manufacturers settle very quickly to avoid the negative publicity.
Winds Aloft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (15 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2326 times:
I share in some of the anger at the possibility of Boeing being named in this potential lawsuit. I think it would be a shame if Boeing got dragged into this when there hasn't been any evidence that they were partly responsible in any way for the crash.
That said, I wouldn't worry about Boeing too much. I'm certain Boeing has a very good group of lawyers at their disposal for these kind of things and if these guys decide to sue Boeing without any basis in fact, I would anticipate Boeing's legal team will make quick work of them.
Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (15 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2319 times:
Some people on this thread need to calm down. For those of you who are so offended by the lawsuit against Boeing regarding this crash, it is normal procedure and something Boeing will be fully prepared for as would Airbus or any other airframe manufacturer. How do you know if an exit failed to open, a slide failed to deploy, a fire extingusher failed to operate or emergency lights or half a hundred other things did not work at a critical moment. I agree that Boeing did not cause the accident or there is nothing about the 747 that did but let me ask you something: If you lost a loved one or were terribly injured yourself in an accident involving a Boeing machine would your loyalty stop you from sueing them (or Airbus)?
Chiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (15 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2310 times:
I can understand the right to sue if you are permanetly injured or killed.
But the cabin crew should be ashamed of themselves. If they are physical fit to work, they should return to work. I don't believe the "I am afraid to work in a airplane!!! bohoo bohoo". I need psychological help.
If you are well enought to be on a SQ flight from TPE to go back home to chengi (4 hour flight), you are clear to work.
One thing that I hate about lawyers is that things tends to get invented during trial. American jury system generally bows down to the so called expert comment.
Overall, I reall believe that US judicial system should be changed. Lawyer should be a profession that is banned.