|Quoting Autothrust (Reply 6):|
??? Why has to pay Airbus? If someone should pay then Northrop.
Last time I checked, the aircraft involved in this incident was built by Airbus ...
|Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 10):|
It was the equivalent of bad turbulence and the PAX Should have been strapped in period, I fly QF we are all told this in the briefing. Thats the reality of this but the way of the world is tabloid headlines "OMG we nearly died and I prayed to god for one more day of life... and he answered!" and sue, sue, sue.
If you are in a car not wearing your seat belt when your partner jams on the brakes and you bang your head do you get to sue Ford? I doubt it. (Toyota maybe...)
But this isn't just turbulence. To use your analogy ... if you're in your car and not wearing a seatbelt, then due to a design defect the steering column breaks off and you are sent flying through the windscreen, can you sue the car manufacturer? Absolutely. However
, the manufacturer may argue that you were contributorily negligent for not wearing a seatbelt. It does not absolve the manufacturer of all responsibility over the injury which was caused by a design defect.
|Quoting Autothrust (Reply 15):|
Unlike the 777 where the software is on all computers the same.
How is that relevant to the thread at hand?
|Quoting Grid (Reply 17):|
Turbulence (caused by nature) is not the same as a man-made object malfunctioning, which results in the injury of dozens of people.
If this was caused by people not wearing their seatbelts in turbulence, or even in clear air turbulence after they have been warned to keep their seatbelts fastened, I would agree. But because this is not
caused by a natural phenomenum, this is entirely a different situation.
|Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 22):|
It has been established in the past that Airbus & Boeing have to pay the airlines compensation for design defects.
|Quoting cam747 (Reply 49):|
if people are injured due to normal turbulence and you don't have your belt on and get injured, then you shouldn't go suing. Its part of the risk of flying, and you get warned to keep your belt on. But that IS NOT what happened in this instance.
|Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 50):|
Sorry but the principle is the same, you have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure your safety, i.e buckle up, if negligence cannot be proved and you would have remained unharmed if you had taken these reasonable steps you should not have the right to sue.
No it's not the same. Injury that is caused by a design defect is the fault of the company that is responsible for the design of the product that failed. At best it could be argued that the passengers who were seated but did not wear their seat belts were contributorily negligent. It cannot be argued that the passengers themselves were solely to blame, because if the design defect had not happened on that particular flight, those passengers who, despite not wearing a seatbelt, would not have been injured.
|Quoting AngMoh (Reply 56):|
Negligence is either knowingly not doing enough to prevent a problem or knowing there is a problem and not doing enough to address it.
Negligence is also involves a "reasonable person" test. Things that a "reasonable person in your position and experience ought to have known" could come back to haunt you. It's not just a matter of whether you knew of a risk or not, it's also whether a reasonble person with your knowledge and experience would have known of the risk.