The world's largest aerospace company faces a multi-million dollar lawsuit in an Illinois court following the recent plane crash in Thailand that killed 90 passengers, including 54 foreigners.

The Nation, Bangkok's independent newspaper, reported on Saturday that U.S. lawyers had filed the first of several cases against the Chicago-based aircraft maker on behalf of Thai victim Parinyawit Choosaeng.

Parinyawit suffered burn injuries after a McDonnel Douglas MD-82 jet of Thai budget carrier One-Two-Go broke into flames on the island of Phuket on Sept. 16.

More than 100 survivors and victims' relatives have given authority to two American lawyers to represent them to claim damages from Boeing, which took over plane maker McDonnel Douglas Corporation in 1997.

The complainant, filed in the Cook County Circuit Court, wants the court to order the defendant company to release immediately to the families all relevant evidence on the design and manufacturing records of the accident aircraft including maintenance records.

"The lawsuits must be filed shortly after the accident to preserve evidence so it would not disappear," lawyer Manuel von Ribbeck told a press conference on Friday. He added that each lawsuit could seek compensation of several million dollars.

Ribbeck said each legal action would be filed individually in accordance with the losses and damages each family had suffered. He added that compensation would cover both physical and psychological injuries and how much more medical intention they would need.

Von Ribbeck said his team had collaborated with Thai law firms in Bangkok and Phuket for possible legal action against other parties, including the airline.

The MD-82 model had crashed 13 times including the Thai crash in which citizens from France, Iran, Britain, Israel, the United States, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Australia and Indonesia were among the dead.

The plane broke in flames after it hit an embankment while landing in heavy rain on Phuket.

According to the Thai aviation department, flight data recorders or black boxes are due to arrive back in Thailand over the weekend, following analysis in the United States to help determine the cause of the crash.

"It is important to learn the cause of these terrible plane crashes to avoid similar accidents from happening again in the future, to save lives," Parinyawit said.

Although the findings of U.S. investigators have not been released, it was earlier reported that the bad weather was one of the major causes of the accident. Probers are likewise not discounting the age of the aircraft, possible mechanical problems and pilot error.

Obtained from this link: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008671494

[Edited 2007-10-04 11:58:18]

Geez people (the survivors and familes), why can't we just let the NTSB do their job and get back to us once they find out what happened. Sad.

Did that specific airplane crash 13 times or a total of 13 MD82s crash ?
If a total of 13 MD82s have gone down thats peanuts to the amount of other aircraft types that have crashed.
Alot more B727/B737/B747 (etc/etc) - have gone down than 13 for each type. So why are they scrutinizing the MD80s

KD

Also was the MD82 built when the company was under the Boeing umbrella?

For some reason I thought it was before...

Well you would think when compare crashes / incidents to the total number of flights worldwide made by that particular aircraft type, the percentage would be very very small.

The people don't know where to get off! Crazy stuff!

Sue first, ask questions later. Include everyone even remotely connected with the accident, and then sort it out later. In the end, we all up paying higher prices for everything, as everyone has to cover their derriers when lawsuits like this happen.

It is sad to see the legitimate grief turn to misdirected anger and those who feed upon it profit from it. If there is "blame" to be assigned, it can only be determined after a thorough investigation - not until then. I wish people realized that.

Ambulance chasing scuzbag attorneys!

They will uncover some very uncomplimentary things about that airline and its crew if they proceed. And Boeing will be exonerated completely.

Then the idiot Thai attorneys will be upset about this reflecting so badly on their own countrymen. This will then literally be insult to injury upon the families of the lost.

Very unfortunate and sad that these attorneys would get into this before they even know what happened.

VERY SAD

Quoting RicciPettit (Reply 3): Also was the MD82 built when the company was under the Boeing umbrella?

No - it was built by McDonnell Douglas. Boeing bought MD, and assumed all the responsabilities of them, basically. But Boeing never had any part in the building of the MD-82.

Quoting RicciPettit (Reply 3): Also was the MD82 built when the company was under the Boeing umbrella?

Yes, but Boeing bought MD and everything that goes with it. Boeing now counts all MD built planes as their own, so they have to take the bad with the good.

I believe that the aircraft involved was over 20 years old. How can a manufacturer ensure that the owners have maintained it properly or even that the operators properly trained their crews to operate the aircraft. If my car was involved in a crash, I would not sue the maker unless the crash was caused by a specific fault with the car, but as my car is over 5 years old, I think the manufacturer would laugh if I crashed and sued them, and rightly so.

Unfortunately, this is a common practice over here. The only winners are the lawyers, hence they do what they do best. As has previously been said, the loosers are the common folk when they are let go because companies cannot afford to pay product liability insurances, or cannot even get cover. Although this accident sounds like weather, can't see God being named in the law suit!!! I would suggest we put higher insurance levies on Lawyers based on the same Product liability manufacturers have, then lets see how many stupid cases they chase!

Quoting Super98 (Reply 6): They will uncover some very uncomplimentary things about that airline and its crew if they proceed. And Boeing will be exonerated completely.

Which is probably not a bad thing.

1-2-Go is one of the shonkiest airlines I've flown (8 flights with them) and one of the only airlines I haven't felt comfortable with getting on their aircraft at times. (Air Asia being another, I'm sad to say).

Ok, I'm sure that Air Asia maintain their planes to a specified and required standard, but you know "that feeling" when you get on an aircraft and something's just not right. Hard to explain and put my finger on, but just a vibe I have had (rarely) at certain times.

Sorry - getting off topic here, but if there's uncomplimentary things to find out about the airline and crew, then so be it. Let's do it an improve standards.

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 1): Geez people (the survivors and familes), why can't we just let the NTSB do their job and get back to us once they find out what happened. Sad.

I'm not sure you should blame the the survivors and relatives. I think that you should blame US law firms. Since it happened to be a plane "made in the USA", then they see a business opportunity in combination with the US "jackpot justice system".

Hours after that tragic accident a minor army of dozens of US lawyers were sitting on planes to the Far East to hunt down survivors and families. With documents in their briefcase, or in their laptop plus portable printer.

"Sign here, it doesn't cost a cent, you get 50% of any income, you do nothing, we do everything, if we win $1,000 you get 500, and here you write your bank account number". (with small letters: "income" = profit after bribing the judge, travel expenses, and other directly related expenses such as office rent and cleaning).

And in the end it will be settled out of court with a total, secret amount so small that Boeing finds it cheaper to settle than continue to have their lawyers fight their defence.

Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm exaggerating somewhat? But I'm afraid not. Any other thoughts?

If Boeing was in any way at fault, sue them and then they will make sure they never let it happen again! Good on them, I knew one of the Australians daughters. RIP

Quoting Bx737 (Reply 9): but as my car is over 5 years old, I think the manufacturer would laugh if I crashed and sued them, and rightly so.

Not in the US. A lawyer friend of mine once said, "any idiot with a typewriter can start a lawsuit." It is unfortunately true, and until we follow the rest of the civilized world and have penalties (such as loser pays the winner's legal costs) it will continue. With contingency fees there is little downside to suing for the most ridiculous things, and enough of them win for lawyers to keep at it, and judges are way too reluctant to throw them out. I think part of the problem is that way too many legislators are lawyers. I want to put in a constitutional amendment that says that anyone who has ever passed a bar exam will henceforth be forever barred from elective office as an inherent conflict of interest.

another frivoulous lawsuit.

Before we apportion blame surely the investigation needs to be completed. That will be way into the future (if it is to be done properly)

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13): Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm exaggerating somewhat? But I'm afraid not. Any other thoughts?

Sadly I think you are right on the money with these thoughts.

I'm sure Boeing isn't the only company being sued.

The engine manufacturers will be sued, the instrument manufacturers, the companies who made the interior fabrics - all will be sued because they should have done a better job to prevent the crash/ prevent damage, injuries and fire after the crash.

Heck the tire manufacturer will probably be sued.

Then we get into the air and Thai corporations including the ATC system.

Just the first of many lawsuits to come.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13): I'm not sure you should blame the the survivors and relatives. I think that you should blame US law firms.

No, you should blame US *law*.

There are both practical and legal limitations on the amount of time you have to file a liability lawsuit. The earlier, the better. Given that most accident investigations take years to complete, it's not in a victims' best interests to wait. And think about it - their best interests are all they care about, not the airline's or the manufacturer's. They're the ones who were injured, those injuries were caused by something out of their control, and more likely than not it was either the airline or the manufacturer that was at fault. (It almost always is; accidents don't just happen by chance.)

Let's say you were in an accident and you ended up with third degree burns over half your body and you lose an arm. Are you going to just sit there and do nothing because you feel a sense of charity to Boeing? What if it comes out 5 years later in the accident report that the crash occurred due to a faulty repair by Boeing? Are you really going to wait that long as your medical bills pile up and insurance companies refuse to insure you for less than $10,000 a month?

Yet another lawsuit that'll likely go nowhere. It's going to be tough to nail Boeing on this as the MD-82 doesn't exactly have a shaky track record. Investigate the airline and maintenance procedures; AA, SK, AZ and YX all fly hundreds of 'em daily. If a design flaw existed, it'dve been found out long long long ago IMO. One nice thing about airliners vs. car manufacturers; approvals are much much harder to get and designs subject to intense scrutiny. I hope the bastards are on contingency and get what they deserve; nothing more than huge costs rung up trying the case.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13): "Sign here, it doesn't cost a cent, you get 50% of any income, you do nothing, we do everything, if we win $1,000 you get 500, and here you write your bank account number". (with small letters: "income" = profit after bribing the judge, travel expenses, and other directly related expenses such as office rent and cleaning). And in the end it will be settled out of court with a total, secret amount so small that Boeing finds it cheaper to settle than continue to have their lawyers fight their defence. Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm exaggerating somewhat? But I'm afraid not. Any other thoughts?

You are exaggertating. It is very difficult to bribe judges, even in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois with a highly corrupt history and if caught could go to jail. The real problem is the jury as they tend to encouaged by the Plaintiff's attonreys in such matters to go for huge judgements against deep pockets, like Boeing. Boeing is a 'deep pocket' with a lot more $$$'s than probably the airline had in insurance to pay out.

Y'all are getting a little heavy on the lawyer hate here. Hate the tort system, not the lawyers. Blaming all lawyers for the (rational under our system, by the way) actions of a few is just like saying "All aircraft mx personnel are scum" because 1-2-Go cut one too many corners. (Not saying the cause is bad mx, just giving an example.)

Remember, lawyers will also be the ones ensuring that Boeing doesn't have to pay as a result of these suits...

I'll agree that we should look into adopting the English system, at least in products liability cases. (In most cases, loser would pay winner's attorneys' fees.)

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 1): NTSB do their job and get back to us once they find out what happened. Sad.

The NTSB does not investigate accidents outside of the US, they may sometimes consult, but this investigation will be carried out by the Thai aviation authorities.

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 14): If Boeing was in any way at fault, sue them and then they will make sure they never let it happen again! Good on them, I knew one of the Australians daughters. RIP

Well in reality Boeing is in no way responsible. They had no part in designing or building the aircraft. Sure they took on the responsibilty, but they're not to blame if they never built the thing.

There has been no investigation finished. This is like Air France. Weather related accident and everyone wants to sue becuase the airlines have so much control over the weather. Let alone the manufaturer. Given the airlines track record, I would be surprised if maintenance was to blame. At the end of the day, sue the airline for pilot error. He should have made the decision to go around earlier...

I agree with the concept of tort reform. I am not in total agreement with the loser pays all legal fees though.

There is a range of classes of lawsuits - and for some of them I do agree that the loser should pay legal fees (such as what this looks like). In other cases - where there is actually a real question of major fault - I would leave each party to pay their own legal fees, with a modification that any party who wishes to delay a case have to pay the other parties continuing legal fees (that would stop corporate America from delaying many cases many years just to wear out the other party).

I would also change how liability is rewarded. There would be a limited level of awards for cases where the problem was a simple mistake, a more generous level for cases where you would say that a person was somewhat incompetent or made a series of bad decisions; and only allow the unlimited rewards for cases of demonstrated gross incompetence or demonstrated major policy decisions to not proceed in a relatively safe direction.


My prediction in this case is that a judge will toss the case once it is shown that Boeing was not involved with the crash.

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 14): If Boeing was in any way at fault, sue them and then they will make sure they never let it happen again! Good on them, I knew one of the Australians daughters. RIP

I am very sorry to hear of your loss.

At this point in the investigation, it is way too early to tell who was at fault. Given the state of many low cost carriers in Asia, it is likely that that will be the problem. The aircraft in question was 23 years old. While age is not a conern if the aircraft is properly maintained, an improperly maintained aircraft, or one that is neglecting important safety procedures, can be deadly. Boeing is legally responsible for all McDonnell Douglas aircraft, however, to morally blame them for the crash would be wrong (unless they maliciouly withheld important safety related information that could have prevented the crash). Again, this is all speculation.

This type of behavior by American attorneys should not be encouaraged, and is a big problem in our fine nation. I realize in a time of loss it may feel necesary to take revenge on anyone potentially responsible, but the victims and their families should let the investigation take its course before deciding who, if anyone, to sue in this case.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 23): The NTSB does not investigate accidents outside of the US, they may sometimes consult, but this investigation will be carried out by the Thai aviation authorities.

I'm pretty sure I read something that said that they were askign the NTSB to help them and basically head the investigation. Perhaps it was just a supportive role, not a primary role. But either way, we all know I meant let the investigaters in general (whoever it may be) figure it out.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 24): Sure they took on the responsibilty, but they're not to blame if they never built the thing.

This is actually not true. Boeing of these days includes also the former McDonnell-Douglas, so yes, they built the thing, although the plane wasn't called a Boeing back in the days. Name of the company doesn't matter here.

But anyway, I don't think it matters in this case, as they won't lose this case.

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 7): No - it was built by McDonnell Douglas. Boeing bought MD, and assumed all the responsibilities of them, basically. But Boeing never had any part in the building of the MD-82.

From the current FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)

Quote: Type Certificate Holder: McDonnell Douglas Corporation Long Beach, California Type Certificate Ownership Record: McDonnell Douglas Corporation transferred ownership of the TC A6WE to The Boeing Company on January 30, 1998. MDC is a subsidiary of The Boeing Company. The DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and –50 Series, and DC-9-81/-82/-83/-87, MD-88, MD-90, and 717 are defined as follows: DC-9-10 Series ………….……………DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F DC-9-20 Series ………….……………DC-9-21 DC-9-30 Series ………….……………DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, and DC-9-34F DC-9-40 Series ………….……………DC-9-41 DC-9-50 Series ………….……………DC-9-51 DC-9-81/-82/-83/-87…….……………DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) MD-88 ……….…………..… MD-88 MD-90 ….....……………..….MD-90-30 717 …..…………………...717-200

Below is my opinion, I am not a lawyer, so don't take it as fact !! ....

This is the same TCDS as the 717, which was marketed as a Boeing, bit like the C-17, another MDC design successfully marketed by Boeing.

As you correctly said, with the purchase of MDC, Boeing purchased and assumed ownership of the TCDS which include the continued airworthiness, manual updates, and parts manufacture, and the responsible manufacturer when it come to accident investigation representation of aircraft the existing fleet.

The parts manufacture for the existing fleet would be a significant income stream for an ageing aircraft fleet like the DC9/MD80/717 series, and is clearly a Boeing responsibility, a manufacturing responsibility Boeing has regard to the type.

Boeing responsibility as the owner of the TCDS includes the issues of ADs, performance updates, and the amendment and distribution of flight crew operations manuals, and maintenance manuals. They are also responsible for the design done by MDC, so if a pilot/machine interface issue exsts Boeing would have a case to answer.

Also prior to this incident, DC-9/MD-80s/MD90/B717 have had over 100 hull loss accidents, with over 3000 people killed. If the plaintiff can show a link from a previous accident that was a contributing cause to this accident, Boeing in my view would also have a case to answer.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 28): This is actually not true. Boeing of these days includes also the former McDonnell-Douglas, so yes, they built the thing, although the plane wasn't called a Boeing back in the days. Name of the company doesn't matter here. But anyway, I don't think it matters in this case, as they won't lose this case.

Okay okay... Yes it does. But Boeing did not actually have involvment in theb design and production of the a/c before the bought out Douglas.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 24): Well in reality Boeing is in no way responsible.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 24): Sure they took on the responsibilty

Make your mind up!  

Boeing is responsible, they took over MD and everything that goes with it. Say a design fault is discovered on the MD-80, who would have to design a fix and notify the operators? That would be Boeing.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 30): But Boeing did not actually have involvment in theb design and production of the a/c before the bought out Douglas.

That's irrelevant, they are one and the same company now. When you take over another company you take over all current and future liability for that company's products.

Quoting Super98 (Reply 6): Ambulance chasing scuzbag attorneys!

Agree whole-heartedly. Classic case of an attorney stirring the pot!

If you read in the OP

Quoting Thai744 (Thread starter): The complainant, filed in the Cook County Circuit Court, wants the court to order the defendant company to release immediately to the families all relevant evidence on the design and manufacturing records of the accident aircraft including maintenance records.

Boeing does not keep the maintenance records for the aircraft it manufactures once they leave the factory (I am not sure they even keep them from before... do they?). Yes, I know it says the design and manufacturing records, which would have to be supplied by Boeing, but the rest can only come from the airline in question, and possibly their mtx provider.

Kris

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 13): And in the end it will be settled out of court with a total, secret amount so small that Boeing finds it cheaper to settle than continue to have their lawyers fight their defence.

Not likely. They're likely asking for a very large amount, and Boeing can likely show that they have NO blame here. The design of the plane likely had nothing to do with this crash (just looking at the facts of the case). What this is is a pure fishing expedition to try to use discovery rules to find something there. There's no reason to settle this one.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 15): Not in the US. A lawyer friend of mine once said, "any idiot with a typewriter can start a lawsuit."

That's getting harder in some cases. A lot of courts are getting stricter on pleading requirements in recent years. However, it's still largely true. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, but it'll take a lot to actually WIN this one, if the cause of action is what I think it is.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 25): My prediction in this case is that a judge will toss the case once it is shown that Boeing was not involved with the crash.

Well, that would entail going a fairly long way through the process (all the way through discovery, and then a motion for summary judgment). They'd have to produce all the relevant facts, yadda, yadda.

What's more likely is that Boeing's lawyers will open up their codes of civil procedure and start throwing the book at this one. There are A LOT of potential issues with this claim.

What's very frustrating about the news articles on this so far is I can't seem to find exactly what they're suing for. It could be some variation of a negligence claim (maintenance or something, or negligence in design), or it could be a straight products-liability case. That might be the best bet for the lawyers, but they'd better hope the court is willing to apply some other law here (yes, laypeople, courts can do that under some circumstances), because there's a 12-year statute of repose on products liability in Illinois. As in, that plane's older than 12 years, so you can't sue under Illinois law for product liability. At least I think that's what's going on. The repose statute has been held unconstitutional in some circumstances, but has been successfully used since the case that did that....

In other words, Illinois products liability is a huge mess right now.

Given that, the lawyers will likely have to try to get some other law applied here, likely California. While Boeing's principal places businesses now are undoubtedly IL and WA, they might be able to make a case for CA, as that's where MDD's was. Granted, I haven't even LOOKED at the IL choice of law rules, so that's speculation.

Folks, what's really happening here is they're suing Boeing in an American court and trying to see how widely they can get American discovery rules applied as a back door to try to find out more info about the crash. The reason it's only Boeing is that they can't sue 1-2-Go or any of the other Thai defendants in American court. There are a lot of ways to fight this suit (and possibly get it thrown out without even going through discovery), so Boeing's not gonna settle this one, especially since they pretty clearly did nothing wrong.

If this case went to trial, it would be pretty hard for the plaintiffs to win. They'd have to prove that something in the design caused the crash, and that seems from the basic facts of the case to just not be true. And given the nature of the plaintiffs, these lawyers almost certainly took the case on contingency. So if this goes to trial and they lose, they won't get paid. Serves them right.

Quoting KBFIspotter (Reply 33): Boeing does not keep the maintenance records for the aircraft it manufactures once they leave the factory

Normally the manufacturer does keep track of the number of cycles, hours etc for an aircraft and major components they are responsible for, so they can implement an AD if a trend develops associated with a particular time in service, and also to plan for the building/supply of time/cycle spare parts.

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 27):

   The NTSB is often called in for their expertise when local investigative agencies are insufficient or are in need of assistance.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 28): This is actually not true. Boeing of these days includes also the former McDonnell-Douglas, so yes, they built the thing, although the plane wasn't called a Boeing back in the days. Name of the company doesn't matter here.

Correct. For the sake of argument, it is important to diferentiate legal responsibility and moral/real responsibility. If a design flaw caused the crash, Boeing would be legally and financially responsible. However, to say it is Boeing's fault as they designed and manufactured the aircraft would be false as they didn't. If that was the case, it would have been a matter out of Boeing's control (Unless they covered up a known defect). Claiming that Boeing is a bad company would be erroneous.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 21): The real problem is the jury as they tend to encouaged by the Plaintiff's attonreys in such matters to go for huge judgements against deep pockets, like Boeing. Boeing is a 'deep pocket' with a lot more $$$'s than probably the airline had in insurance to pay out.

Boeing has good lawyers. This one shouldn't ever get to a jury. It'll either be shot down by statute of repose, the state equivalent of 12(b)(6), a motion for summary judgment following the discovery process, or a directed verdict at trial. But what you say about juries is absolutely true.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 28): This is actually not true. Boeing of these days includes also the former McDonnell-Douglas, so yes, they built the thing, although the plane wasn't called a Boeing back in the days. Name of the company doesn't matter here. But anyway, I don't think it matters in this case, as they won't lose this case.

  

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 25): I would also change how liability is rewarded. There would be a limited level of awards for cases where the problem was a simple mistake, a more generous level for cases where you would say that a person was somewhat incompetent or made a series of bad decisions; and only allow the unlimited rewards for cases of demonstrated gross incompetence or demonstrated major policy decisions to not proceed in a relatively safe direction.

Damage caps are a very blunt instrument for tort reform, and each of those is extremely subjective standard which would require juries to decide matters of law (as opposed to facts). In most tort cases, there's not a difference between negligence, recklessness, and purpose, and there are good reasons for that. I simply don't trust juries to decide the difference between negligence and recklessness in complex civil cases, and you can't have the judge decide them because they're fact-dependent. Criminal cases (where juries do decide mens rea) are usually much simpler.

There are much better ways to effect tort reform, but that's for the non-av board.

Look, Boeing really has nothing to worry about in this case. The lawyers are just trying to use Boeing as a springboard for discovery against the airline and other Thai entities, and they likely won't get it.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 31): Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 24): Well in reality Boeing is in no way responsible. Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 24): Sure they took on the responsibilty Make your mind up! Boeing is responsible, they took over MD and everything that goes with it. Say a design fault is discovered on the MD-80, who would have to design a fix and notify the operators? That would be Boeing. Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 30): But Boeing did not actually have involvment in theb design and production of the a/c before the bought out Douglas. That's irrelevant, they are one and the same company now. When you take over another company you take over all current and future liability for that company's products.

I see what you are saying as far as legalities go. I'm saying non legally Boeing did not build the plane at all. I'm just mad that people are suing them without even a cause yet...

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 18):

Are the airline, Management of it, and the mechs going to get sued as well, considering it was there job to make sure the plane was fit to fly, and all normal procedures for the maint of it were being followed. And all the staff working on and in it were following standard procedures?

Nothing new in Thailand. AFAIK they sued Airbus over the A300 (? A310) that crashed I think at KTM.

Lets see -

I work in McDonalds and my boss tells me to strip. I do and then sue and win $6 million. I spill hot coffee on myself, sue and win $3 million. I smoke all my life and get cancer, sue and win millions. I eat Big Macks 4 times and week, get fat, sue and win. Kill your wife and her friend and get found not guilty. It goes on and on in the US.

In the end Boeing will be exonorated but it will cost them some bucks.

Tort reform and the elimination of the jury system is the only answer.