Flyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 396 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8538 times:
Reported in the Sunday Hearld Sun today a passenger on a flight from Bali wants to lodge documents in the Supreme Court because as he says he was "Assaulted by the extreme volume in his headset"and is now launching a damages clam in the Supreme Court.
In the paper its says "A statement of claim alleges a short time into the flight to Melbourne the man fitted the ear plugs intio his ears supplied by the airline and plugged them into the his seat's audio jack. "His ears were imediately assualted by the extreme volume playing through the headset".
It goes on to say that now he clams he has accoustic shock, tinnitus in both ear and sleep disruption syndrome. It also says that evern thow he was listining to the music at a lower volume when the anouncements came over it was at such a high volume now he want to sue JQ.
How many more greedy, stupid people are out there that will waste the Court's time in order to get a quick easy buck. Jetstar surly has nothing to worry about, I wounder if some of these Judges laugh and shake their heads at what some people will do to get easy money these days.
CrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1618 posts, RR: 42 Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8282 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
That's why you should always turn down the volume before you plug in your headset.. It is incidents like these that make me wonder why people don't have common sense anymore.
Flyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7970 times:
Where I work at, the Supreme Court, we had a lady that sued Delta Airlines she was on a flight from Detriot to Los Angeles she was using the toliet and some one open the door on her while she was sitting there. She flew all the way back to Melbourne then decided to sue DL cause of the problems she has suffered since some one walked in on her, the thing is that she won her claim. I was reading her file because it was Delta Airlines. If it was not so serious you would be rolling on the floor laughing but people are doing this and whats more they are getting away with it by winning their clams. Such a stupid world we live in now when it comes to this thing. And the Lawyers and Solicitors are rubbing their hands together they must see money walking into their firms every day now.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7727 posts, RR: 73 Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7764 times:
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Thread starter): Jetstar surly has nothing to worry about, I wounder if some of these Judges laugh and shake their heads at what some people will do to get easy money these days.
I think the passenger has every right to take this to court if they feel like they have a case, at the same time I think the court should be able to award costs and damages against such claimants where they are of the view it is frivolous litigation.
The boundary needs to be established by the courts based upon facts, not public opinion.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Elevated From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 288 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (5 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6907 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 5): I think the passenger has every right to take this to court if they feel like they have a case
That is such an ambiguous statement.
That's half the problem right there. The other part is the courts ruling and listening to their outrageous claims/behavior. How about a little bit of responsibility goes a long way and a little personal awareness too? God forbid.
Step one) Is lowering the volume prior to plugging in the headset if you're such a fragile flower. We live in a World of zero accountability or personal liability. Step two) NetJets.
Where does the "Idiocracy" end and the logical, analytic reasoning start these days? You wouldn't believe what people say and say they are going to "sue or write in" over in the Cabin. The entitlement.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6335 times:
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Thread starter): Jetstar surly has nothing to worry about, I wounder if some of these Judges laugh and shake their heads at what some people will do to get easy money these days.
Judges won't shake their heads at anything, they'll just do their job in total impartiality. What they think of all of that once they get back home is another issue I guess.
As far as Jetstar not having anything to worry about, I'm not so sure. Even if the case is thrown out, it will take weeks, months and several preliminary hearings before it happens, with all the associated legal costs. Unless the case is clear cut, many companies (and the court) will prefer to settle to avoid protracted, expensive and possibly mediatized legal affair.
Frivolous suers, and I'm inclined to believe that man is one of them, do not necessarily go to court with the aim of winning the case. They just hope to stir enough crap around that the defendant (usually a big company) will prefer to quietly sweep it under the carpet rather than risk it. Not to mention that it's sometimes cheaper to settle than to pay for endless hours of some of the most expensive lawyers around...
Oh, I almost forgot:
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
a36001 From Australia, joined Sep 2012, 84 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6194 times:
This is one of the reason our insurance premiums are so high! (Like green slips in NSW). Sue at all cost's! This world is becoming full of little darlings, I'm over it! I want my deserted island! Happy Christmas
YVRFlyer From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 69 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6052 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 8): Frivolous suers, and I'm inclined to believe that man is one of them, do not necessarily go to court with the aim of winning the case. They just hope to stir enough crap around that the defendant (usually a big company) will prefer to quietly sweep it under the carpet rather than risk it. Not to mention that it's sometimes cheaper to settle than to pay for endless hours of some of the most expensive lawyers around...
That's why it's time for the airlines to go on the offensive: Just as they impose longterm or lifetime bans on passengers for violence, why not create something for frivolous litigants? Like, if someone tries to do this, ban him/her for life from ever flying on the airline again - perhaps compile a list with other airlines, so they too can avoid these risks. People who engage in these kinds of lawsuits often make it a habit elsewhere. A little bit of ostracism and shunning would be a good inhibitor against bad behavior! Let 'em fly on NetJets if they want.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2558 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5439 times:
Quoting Elevated (Reply 7): The other part is the courts ruling and listening to their outrageous claims/behavior
Our courts are far less inclined to listen to these sorts of claims than others around the world. They will listen and they will judge based on what they hear, but they will only let a case like this proceed if there is a really clear link to the company being at fault and if the damages are real (ie not just "I broke my fingernail, give me $1m please").
YVRFlyer From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 69 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
Quoting EK413 (Reply 14): As for the passenger suing JQ he should receive a life ban from flying FULL STOP!
Totally with you there, EK413! I imagine that a lot of airlines' strategists and lawyers hang out here, hopefully they will see that some types passengers aren't worth try to attract, and it is worth examining ways to repel and purge them. Lifetime bans will certainly have an educational effect on the public! Even just floating the idea as a trial balloon will make potential frivolous litigants think twice.
So, to the community, do you think this could be implemented? Yes, no? And if so, how would you try to roll out a program like this?
ZuluAlpha From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Quoting airtrainer (Reply 16): Quoting EK413 (Reply 14):
As for the passenger suing JQ he should receive a life ban from flying FULL STOP!
Guess this moron would try to sue for that as well. Stupidity is endless...for sure
I know of persons that work for an airline in their reservations centre where the staff have claimed acoustic shock and after the third workers claim of acoustic shock, the airline took the step as to not allow the staff to take phone calls. A similar situation could happen here, if this person is successful in suing JQ then, for the safety of the own passenger, they could restrict the movements of the passenger to fly. Or I guess they sign a disclaimer written up by the JQ lawyers, stating that if he uses the entertainment system, it is his own silly fault.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7727 posts, RR: 73 Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1812 times:
Quoting EK413 (Reply 14):
I was waiting for the part when you say "just kidding" but your honesty in favor of such people living in our society...
As for the passenger suing JQ he should receive a life ban from flying FULL STOP!
The courts is the only forum where all the facts can come to light in an impartial setting. At the same time, I think the courts should be able to award costs against plaintiffs for frivolous litigation. I am not in favor of frivolous litigation, and I am not in favor of removing peoples access to legal representation. I do not have all the information, neither do you, a kangaroo court achieves nothing.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1555 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 2): That's why you should always turn down the volume before you plug in your headset.. It is incidents like these that make me wonder why people don't have common sense anymore.
I agree that there appears to be a lack of common sense here, but I would also think that when one plugs in a headset, one does not expect the volume to be so loud as to damage their hearing. There should be some safeguards in place to prevent the volume from getting too high.
Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 3): What I find even sadder than this ridiculous individual, is that there are solicitors/lawyers that would take this case on.
Because everybody is entitled to legal representation.
Quoting Elevated (Reply 7): That's half the problem right there. The other part is the courts ruling and listening to their outrageous claims/behavior.
The court will determine what's "outrageous" and what's "frivolous". The defendant may file a motion to strike out a statement of claim for various reasons, one of which is if they believe a claim is frivolous or vexatious. The court will then rule on that motion.
Quoting zeke (Reply 19): The courts is the only forum where all the facts can come to light in an impartial setting. At the same time, I think the courts should be able to award costs against plaintiffs for frivolous litigation. I am not in favor of frivolous litigation, and I am not in favor of removing peoples access to legal representation. I do not have all the information, neither do you, a kangaroo court achieves nothing.
I agree that making a "ruling" here on a.net without knowing all the facts doesn't achieve anything.
Incidentally, costs are awarded to the defendant if a claim is struck off as being frivolous.
aztrainer From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 401 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1429 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 20): I agree that there appears to be a lack of common sense here, but I would also think that when one plugs in a headset, one does not expect the volume to be so loud as to damage their hearing. There should be some safeguards in place to prevent the volume from getting too high.
One would think that someone would know that a setting for one person may not be comfortable for another. Most auditory equipment have limits, but you then have a problem with people that have hearing problems and need amplified singles. They then could get into trouble for not having equal access for people with hearing loss/damages.
Quoting fiscal (Reply 18): One thing that everyone seems to have missed is that the post states that it was the announcement that was loud not the music.
If it was the PA that did the damage, then maybe this is something a bit more serious.
I have been on flights where the announcements are slightly louder and have a different sound than that of the music, but it had never been at a extremely higher rate. Also, I have a problem with only one person experiencing discomfort due to the volume increase. I would think that it should of happened to more people than just this individual.
Lastly, thank GOD this is not an American for once and our wonderful litigious society.
Quoting EK413 (Reply 14): As for the passenger suing JQ he should receive a life ban from flying FULL STOP!
Totally agree and I wish that there was a idiot "no fly" list that people could be placed on for these type of actions. If proven to be a frivolous lawsuit you have the possibility of a ban. Flying is a privilege and not a right. You abuse the privilege, you should lose the right to fly. IMHO
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 396 posts, 
From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 692 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1618 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 238 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7727 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1415 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 288 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 69 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 1521 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
