All good attorney will sue every possible plaintiff who has a lot of money
Shouldn't that be "defendant?" Usually the plaintiff is the one who's filing the lawsuit...
It's far from unheard of for negligent ground handling (and I'm talking normal ground handling, not MX) to wind up causing a bird to come down
: ValuJet 592 and SABRETech, and AMR Corporation (later sold).
This will likely never go to trial, but if it did, would a jury believe that the passenger (who can't testify, obviously) didn't realize that AA doesn't serve that tiny little airport?
You're kidding, right? Most people I know wouldn't know the difference between an UA
bird and a US bird. I've heard people call a DC-9 a 767, or an ATR a L-1011. A jury is supposed to know that AA
does not, itself, fly to Kirksville? Gimme a break!
Airlines carry liability insurance on their aircraft, so the actual financial damage it does to the company is small
Perhaps, but it might help to explain why I can't afford health insurance...
Your point is well taken. I do see that AMR might be somewhat
culpable, especially if C3
had a history of problems that AMR ignored. However, AMR is less guilty of any wrongdoing that might have occured compared to C3
. TransStates is only culpable if something they did caused the accident. Same with the a/c mfr and engine mfr. If the cause of the accident was, say, weather, then the defendants should be entirely off the hook, unless C3
dispatch put the aircraft in the sky knowing that it was dangerous (and I mean DANGEROUS, not risky) to do so.
Some measure compensation is justified. The question is, how much? Unless someone was negligent or just plain stupid, I'd say not that much (of course, in this case, $75,000 would be "not that much").
Just my opinion, but the only reason anyone is getting sued is because AA
has deep pockets (even as they lose money). The lawyer is suing anyone that might
be culpable and is letting the jury sort it out. While I understand the reasoning for not having lawyers who lose pay for frivilous cases, I think the defendants proved innocent should have the option of counter-suing to recover damages from the fivilous case... But that's a discussion for a political/legal message board.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.