Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1383 times:
Clearly AA owes him for the damages to the gas station. Extreme mental anquish can backfire if not presented very carefully. If this were some business he built from ground up..or had been in his family for years..then there could be some sympathy--but this was a franchise. There are other less pleasant things you could witness which would make the claim valid.
Dinker225 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1056 posts, RR: 19 Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
This is pathetic. Your gas station was hit by a plane that crashed on accident. I don't sue the guy that crashes into my car and makes me take the bus for 2 weeks while my car is being fixed. You build your gas station(or buy it) under where airplanes take off and land your taking a risk. If you didn't want that risk you should have built your gas station somewhere else. The insurance is sure to pay him back for what was lost or damaged when the engine hit the station. Like PROSA said earlier, be thankfull your still hear and not with the rest of the people on that flight!!
Two rules in aviation, don't hit anything and don't run out of gas, cause if you run out of gas yer gonna hit something.
Frequentflier From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 422 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1165 times:
This is total speculation.
While I really dislike AA, how do we know that it was THEIR fault? Maybe the pilot shouldn't have used the rudder so much, but shouldn't Airbus have issued an aw directive if their was a real danger to the rudders?
Also, just on another topic, didn't the a/c have a B check the day before?
PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5530 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1144 times:
The accident wasn't on purpose, but it WAS AA's fault! This guy is entitled to sue.
He is entitled to reasonable compensation for his actual losses. There probably was some damage to the station property, and without doubt the business was closed for several days at least. As a result, the station owner can and should be compensated for the damage and for lost business; whether AA or Airbus (or, realistically, their insurance carriers) should pay is to be decided. My point is that the station owner deserves nothing for his "mental anguish" claim. That's a pile of manure.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5530 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1053 times:
My point is that the station owner deserves nothing for his "mental anguish" claim. That's a pile of manure. Ah. And you know that? You know the guy? What about if he's suffering from PTSD after having a plane with 200 people crash near him with all those people dying?
I just don't buy touchy-feely, New Age concepts such as PTSD. The fact remains that the station owner survived physically unscathed with (as far as I can tell from pictures) relatively little damage to his property. Many, many people weren't so lucky, and he should be thankful rather than greedy.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
David_mx From Mexico, joined Nov 1999, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1000 times:
My concern is not about if he wants fast money, or if he has the right to sue... that's his problem. My concerns is that if NTSB has not determined yet the causes of the crash, they DON'T have the right to claim that "...the Airbus 300 was constructed in a "dangerous, defective and unsafe manner.".." I'm quite worried about the Airbus fame, and the way people is starting to make a relation between Airbus and Unsafe, This was discussed here... People don't care what type of plane they are riding but when one crashes (i.e. EgyptAir) we find media and some people (like this guy) doing an statement that affects an entire company and it's reputation.
p.s. Just imagine some article saying "...The suit charges American Airlines with negligence and claims that the Boeing 777 was constructed in a "dangerous, defective and unsafe manner." Whatever the plane was I find this statement as an idiot one.
Jsuen From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 984 times:
Once again, NTSB reports and conclusions are NOT admissible in a court of law. They recommend changes for safety and do not assign blame. There's no reason why he should wait for the NTSB investigation to finish if he's going to sue.
Jjbiv From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1226 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 939 times:
NTSB reports aren't admissible? It seems like the report would be invaluable in helping the judge/jury understand the incident from an unbiased point of view. Well, welcome to our justice system, I suppose!
UALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 926 times:
I find it amazing that only one person other than the person who started the thread gets the point. Why is the lawyer sueing AA when they claim the aircraft was CONSTRUCTED in a negligent manner? What has AA got to do with building airplanes? The lawsuit is a farce, but the big clue as to how stupid it is isn't the "mental anguish" language, its that the Lawyer thinks that AA built the airplane and is therefore responsible for any design flaws. AA's responsibility is Solely the maintenence of the airplane to FAA and manufacturer's standards.
Jsuen From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 885 times:
L-188, they should NEVER be a roadmap. In fact, I find it good that he sued before the report, not after. The moment the NTSB report becomes a roadmap, then people will start trying to defend themselves, perhaps by lying, giving incomplete information or otherwise obstructing a safety investigation. Safety is the top priority, not people's reputations, blame or money.
Besides, constructed is a word the AP wrote. We know how they get things right.
Archie From Mexico, joined Aug 2000, 228 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 877 times:
To see something like this is very trumatic and I do feel bad for people who have to see this types of scenes, but to sue AA to get some extra bucks will not heal that. That is just taking advatage of the situation. At least that´s my opinion.