Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gas Station Owner Sues Over AA587  
User currently offlinePshifrin From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 255 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Not that I agree with this lawsuit, but based on his argument, shouldn't he be suing Airbus and not AA?

http://1010wins.com/topstories/StoryFolder/story_390659549_html

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1583 times:

"Extreme mental anguish," for Christ's sakes. What a pathetic whining pile of you-know-what. The schmuck should be happy that the engine didn't fall on his head.


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1565 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.

User currently offlineArchie From Mexico, joined Aug 2000, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

I´m tired of all these idiots trying to find every stupid thing to sue and get some fast money.

I mean, I´m not saying he did not suffer, but it`s not as if this accident was on purpose.

Regards,

Archie



User currently offlineDinker225 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1068 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1418 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.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

The accident wasn't on purpose, but it WAS AA's fault! This guy is entitled to sue.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

IMHO, he does not have the right to sue until a final cause is determined by the NTSB.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineFrequentflier From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 422 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1347 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?


User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1326 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"
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1252 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?


User currently offline707guy From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

If compensation for this follows the norm in aviation accidents, the airline and the aircraft company usually split the cost of compensation for victims.

User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1235 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"
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1225 times:

PROSA, you're disagreeing with all of the medical community. Do you not believe in any mental disorders or illnesses? PTSD is REAL and destroys lives.

User currently offlineFirstclasser From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

Guys, shut up. Get off of Bullock's back!!!! Obviously, someone should be responsible.

User currently offlineDavid_mx From Mexico, joined Nov 1999, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1182 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.

David.

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.



User currently offlineJsuen From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1166 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.

User currently offlineJjbiv From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1121 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!

joe


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1115 times:

They are not admissable but when they do provide one hell of a road map if you are trying to sue to assign blame.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1108 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.

User currently offlineJsuen From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1067 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.


User currently offlineArchie From Mexico, joined Aug 2000, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1059 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.

Archie


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...
Virgin Atlantic Sues Over Copied J Class Seating posted Sun Oct 21 2007 14:20:26 by Singapore_Air
Man Sues U.S. Over Ring Lost At Airport posted Tue Jan 3 2006 23:29:07 by Clickhappy
Skywest Sues Delta Over Short Payment posted Fri Feb 1 2008 16:21:55 by LAXintl
Ryanair Sues EU Over Olympic Air State Aid posted Sun Nov 25 2007 12:29:44 by LAXintl
Ryanair Sues EU Comission Over MUC posted Wed Nov 14 2007 07:34:18 by USADreamliner
Comair Sues FAA Over LEX Crash posted Fri Feb 23 2007 00:56:30 by Tys777
Woman Sues JetBlue Over Size Of Sick Sack posted Thu Feb 1 2007 01:11:04 by Richierich
Ryanair Sues France Over Work Law posted Wed Jan 3 2007 17:28:08 by BuyantUkhaa
Woman Sues JetBlue Over Death Of Husband posted Wed Dec 27 2006 21:24:09 by WMUPilot
Fat Man Sues Air France Over Plane Seat Row posted Wed Dec 20 2006 16:01:23 by Jetfuel