Airlines facing lawsuits in regards to 09/11? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

DEI37 · 09-09-2003, 01:59 PM

Can you say stupid? Talk about a bunch of greedy money-whores. Here's the link: 09/11 Airline lawsuits

Here's the story:

NEW YORK, Sept. 9 — The crashing of a hijacked jetliner was the kind of “foreseeable risk” that the airline industry should have guarded against, a judge ruled Tuesday as he permitted lawsuits related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to proceed.

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Alvin Hellerstein said negligent security screening could have contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the crash of a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania.
American and United Airlines, the Boeing Co. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had attempted to get the suits dismissed, arguing they had no duty to anticipate and guard against deliberate, suicidal aircraft crashes. The defendants also argued any alleged negligence on their part was not the cause of the deaths and injuries.
In his 49-page ruling, Hellerstein said that while it may be true that terrorists had never deliberately flown airplanes into buildings, “airlines reasonably could foresee that crashes causing death and destruction on the ground was a hazard that would arise should hijackers take control of a plane.”

COCKPIT INVASION AT ISSUE
“The intrusion by terrorists into the cockpit, coupled with the volatility of a hijacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk that hijacked airplanes might crash, jeopardizing innocent lives on the ground as well as in the airplane,” he added.
“In order to be considered foreseeable, the precise manner in which the harm was inflicted need not be perfectly predicted,” Hellerstein wrote.
The judge said the evidence he had seen does not support Boeing’s argument that the invasion and takeover of the cockpit by the terrorists frees it from liability. The plaintiffs argued Boeing should have designed its cockpit door to prevent hijackers from invading.
He also said the Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Center property, “has not shown that it will prove its defense of governmental immunity as to negligence allegations made by WTC occupants.”
Messages for comment left with lawyers on both sides of the litigation were not immediately returned.
The decision was based on the cases of about 70 of the injured and dead.
As a result of the ruling, court officials were preparing for a possible legal onslaught at the Manhattan courthouse as early as this week as some people choose lawsuits over applying to the federal victims compensation fund. To receive a payout from the fund, families must agree not to sue airlines or other entities.

DEADLINE LOOMS
Dec. 22 is the last day families may apply to the federal victims compensation fund, created by Congress to provide financial aid to the families of those killed or injured in the attacks, and to protect the commercial aviation industry from crippling litigation.
As of late August, 2,275 claims had been filed. But roughly 1,700 families had yet to decide whether to enroll with the fund or join lawsuits against the airlines, security companies and government agencies.
The average payout so far has been about $1.5 million, with the highest award $6.8 million. The minimum payout is $250,000.
The fund has made offers averaging $1.41 million to 398 families thus far. About 1,600 families have filed papers stating an interest in applying for the fund.

© 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Skettios · 09-09-2003, 03:07 PM

Not that I think suing anyone is a great idea, but the airlines don't have any kind of CIA or NSA any advance warning. Bush does, and he didn't do anything. just a thought.

laconic1 · 09-09-2003, 03:18 PM

Even in the ultra-litigious society we live in today I have a difficult time believing the airlines could be sued for negligence, and an impossible time believing Boeing and the Port Authority could possibly be held liable. How was the Port Authority liable, was it because they built the towers too tall, because they didn't equip the towers with anti-aircraft missiles? sarcasm

dogzilla · 09-09-2003, 03:30 PM

These lawsuits are insane. There is no way an airline could reasonably assume planes were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings.

What's next? Suing the owners of propane trucks and gasoline trucks?

Frozen North · 09-09-2003, 03:50 PM

If my plane gets shot down by a terrorist with a SAM can my family sue the airline for not equipping the plane with flares?

uncle phil · 09-09-2003, 04:07 PM

absolute bullshit...

punx1325 · 09-10-2003, 04:10 PM

This lawsuit is kinda like the fat guy suing McDonalds because he got fat. Everyone was affected someway by 9/11. This is really going to hurt the airlines, and the consumer will pay out of the ass again for it.

shalafi · 09-10-2003, 04:58 PM

Someone should beat that judge's ass with a "forseeable" tire iron. What a fucking moron.

druptight · 09-11-2003, 06:15 AM

as much as i feel for these people, this is ridiculous, as is their proposal for ground zero... they're going to have to learn to live with what happened eventually, without extra money and help from everyone!

clavus · 09-11-2003, 09:06 AM

Um, excuse me. If the airlines would have followed the rules already in place, the terrorists wouldn't have got on those planes, thousands of people wouldn't have died, and maybe George W, wouldn't be so intent on bankrupting our nation and destroying our standing in the world.

But those lazy, incompetent airline idiots DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. Why should they not be held accountable? Why should the US taxpayer fund and protect them?

If my company ignored the rules, and thosands of people died as a result, I would expect to be sued.

onetime2 · 09-11-2003, 10:04 AM

Sorry, but people look at this now with a hell of a lot more info than they had assembled at the time. Every scrap of intelligence has been brought together now that mentions anything about flying planes into buildings. Before it was all over the place and there were other more "credible" threats that held priority.

The world changed on 9/11 two years ago. Hijackings in the past were thought to be temporary with, typically, little loss of life. Anything judged now will be based on the new "rules" that were just wild ass guesses before.

Just another example of our society and the need to place blame somewhere else. I don't see citizens as a whole jumping up and saying "Damn, looking back at the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Pan Am 103, embassy bombings, the first world trade center attack, the USS Cole attack, etc. We should have forced our politicians to do something earlier."

The ball was dropped over the course of several administrations. We all hold responsibility for our assinine belief that terrorism will not touch us. Sure it was something that happened in Northern Ireland, the middle east, and a few other areas but surely no one would do that to us.

Personal responsibility is lacking in our society. If you get laid off and can't find a new job, it's the big bad corporation that did it to you. It had nothing to do with the fact that you didn't develop sufficient skills in a market that would be around in the future and have a demand for you. Or you rob a bank, that's not your fault, it's your environment. How can you be expected to walk down the street and see other people driving $60k cars and not have a desire to have one yourself?

The world is a dangerous place. You take risks. No one can absolutley insure your safety.

nothingx · 09-11-2003, 10:18 AM

Come on... if this was really a “foreseeable risk” it wouldn't have happened.

Now today it might be concidered a “foreseeable risk”, but what can the airlines really do about it? They've beefed up screening and security measures, but if some crazed terrorist group tried hard enough, there is no doubt in my mind that they could pull it off again. There will always be moments of insecurity or someone not paying attention, and a moment is all they need.

MacGnG · 09-11-2003, 02:26 PM

they (the gov't and the airlines) should have gotten these things together a long time ago and should have had some sort of guidelines and regulations to follow. they had something to follow but i don't think it's the fault of the airlines.

Booboo · 09-11-2003, 02:35 PM

Suing the Airlines is like suing whoever built the world trade center.. hey if it wasn't there this wouldn't have happened!

give me a break.

clavus · 09-11-2003, 04:18 PM

Let me be a little more clear.

The rules were already in place on 9/10. The airlines broke the rules.

No, this is not like suing the builder of the WTC, or McDonalds, or placing the blame on someone else. This is blaming the sorry motherfuckers who broke the rules.

If I ignore the rules about having a road-worthly vehicle, and my no-brake-having ass crashes into someone, that's my fucking fault.

If I leave a loaded pistol on the sidewalk in front of my house, and some kid shoots himself in the head with it, I get a heaping helping of jail time.

If you ignore the rules to protect your planes from being hijacked, and they get hijacked, that's your fault. It wan't a question of vigilance (or lack there of), or some esoteric measure of security. The airlines broke the rules, and people died as a result.

View Poll Results: Do you agree with the lawsuits>
No	29	85.29%
Yes	2	5.88%
I'll discuss it	3	8.82%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

09-09-2003, 01:59 PM	#1 (permalink)
DEI37 Go faster! Location: Wisconsin	Airlines facing lawsuits in regards to 09/11? Can you say stupid? Talk about a bunch of greedy money-whores. Here's the link: 09/11 Airline lawsuits Here's the story: NEW YORK, Sept. 9 — The crashing of a hijacked jetliner was the kind of “foreseeable risk” that the airline industry should have guarded against, a judge ruled Tuesday as he permitted lawsuits related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to proceed. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Alvin Hellerstein said negligent security screening could have contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the crash of a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania. American and United Airlines, the Boeing Co. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had attempted to get the suits dismissed, arguing they had no duty to anticipate and guard against deliberate, suicidal aircraft crashes. The defendants also argued any alleged negligence on their part was not the cause of the deaths and injuries. In his 49-page ruling, Hellerstein said that while it may be true that terrorists had never deliberately flown airplanes into buildings, “airlines reasonably could foresee that crashes causing death and destruction on the ground was a hazard that would arise should hijackers take control of a plane.” COCKPIT INVASION AT ISSUE “The intrusion by terrorists into the cockpit, coupled with the volatility of a hijacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk that hijacked airplanes might crash, jeopardizing innocent lives on the ground as well as in the airplane,” he added. “In order to be considered foreseeable, the precise manner in which the harm was inflicted need not be perfectly predicted,” Hellerstein wrote. The judge said the evidence he had seen does not support Boeing’s argument that the invasion and takeover of the cockpit by the terrorists frees it from liability. The plaintiffs argued Boeing should have designed its cockpit door to prevent hijackers from invading. He also said the Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Center property, “has not shown that it will prove its defense of governmental immunity as to negligence allegations made by WTC occupants.” Messages for comment left with lawyers on both sides of the litigation were not immediately returned. The decision was based on the cases of about 70 of the injured and dead. As a result of the ruling, court officials were preparing for a possible legal onslaught at the Manhattan courthouse as early as this week as some people choose lawsuits over applying to the federal victims compensation fund. To receive a payout from the fund, families must agree not to sue airlines or other entities. DEADLINE LOOMS Dec. 22 is the last day families may apply to the federal victims compensation fund, created by Congress to provide financial aid to the families of those killed or injured in the attacks, and to protect the commercial aviation industry from crippling litigation. As of late August, 2,275 claims had been filed. But roughly 1,700 families had yet to decide whether to enroll with the fund or join lawsuits against the airlines, security companies and government agencies. The average payout so far has been about $1.5 million, with the highest award $6.8 million. The minimum payout is $250,000. The fund has made offers averaging $1.41 million to 398 families thus far. About 1,600 families have filed papers stating an interest in applying for the fund. © 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. __________________ Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

09-09-2003, 03:07 PM	#2 (permalink)
Skettios Condition: Stable and Improving Location: Finger on the little red button.	Not that I think suing anyone is a great idea, but the airlines don't have any kind of CIA or NSA any advance warning. Bush does, and he didn't do anything. just a thought. __________________ Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. Frederich Nietzsche

09-09-2003, 04:07 PM	#6 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	absolute bullshit... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

09-10-2003, 04:10 PM	#7 (permalink)
punx1325 Junkie Location: San Diego	This lawsuit is kinda like the fat guy suing McDonalds because he got fat. Everyone was affected someway by 9/11. This is really going to hurt the airlines, and the consumer will pay out of the ass again for it. __________________ If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is....

09-09-2003, 03:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
laconic1 Junkie	Even in the ultra-litigious society we live in today I have a difficult time believing the airlines could be sued for negligence, and an impossible time believing Boeing and the Port Authority could possibly be held liable. How was the Port Authority liable, was it because they built the towers too tall, because they didn't equip the towers with anti-aircraft missiles? sarcasm

09-09-2003, 03:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
dogzilla Junkie Location: New York	These lawsuits are insane. There is no way an airline could reasonably assume planes were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings. What's next? Suing the owners of propane trucks and gasoline trucks?

09-09-2003, 03:50 PM	#5 (permalink)
Frozen North Insane Location: Alaska	If my plane gets shot down by a terrorist with a SAM can my family sue the airline for not equipping the plane with flares?

09-10-2003, 04:58 PM	#8 (permalink)
shalafi ARRRRRRRRRR Location: Stuart, Florida	Someone should beat that judge's ass with a "forseeable" tire iron. What a fucking moron.

09-11-2003, 06:15 AM	#9 (permalink)
druptight Banned Location: In Your Pants!!!!	as much as i feel for these people, this is ridiculous, as is their proposal for ground zero... they're going to have to learn to live with what happened eventually, without extra money and help from everyone!

09-11-2003, 09:06 AM	#10 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	Um, excuse me. If the airlines would have followed the rules already in place, the terrorists wouldn't have got on those planes, thousands of people wouldn't have died, and maybe George W, wouldn't be so intent on bankrupting our nation and destroying our standing in the world. But those lazy, incompetent airline idiots DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. Why should they not be held accountable? Why should the US taxpayer fund and protect them? If my company ignored the rules, and thosands of people died as a result, I would expect to be sued. __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

09-11-2003, 10:04 AM	#11 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Sorry, but people look at this now with a hell of a lot more info than they had assembled at the time. Every scrap of intelligence has been brought together now that mentions anything about flying planes into buildings. Before it was all over the place and there were other more "credible" threats that held priority. The world changed on 9/11 two years ago. Hijackings in the past were thought to be temporary with, typically, little loss of life. Anything judged now will be based on the new "rules" that were just wild ass guesses before. Just another example of our society and the need to place blame somewhere else. I don't see citizens as a whole jumping up and saying "Damn, looking back at the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Pan Am 103, embassy bombings, the first world trade center attack, the USS Cole attack, etc. We should have forced our politicians to do something earlier." The ball was dropped over the course of several administrations. We all hold responsibility for our assinine belief that terrorism will not touch us. Sure it was something that happened in Northern Ireland, the middle east, and a few other areas but surely no one would do that to us. Personal responsibility is lacking in our society. If you get laid off and can't find a new job, it's the big bad corporation that did it to you. It had nothing to do with the fact that you didn't develop sufficient skills in a market that would be around in the future and have a demand for you. Or you rob a bank, that's not your fault, it's your environment. How can you be expected to walk down the street and see other people driving $60k cars and not have a desire to have one yourself? The world is a dangerous place. You take risks. No one can absolutley insure your safety. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

09-11-2003, 10:18 AM	#12 (permalink)
nothingx undead Location: nihilistic freedom	Come on... if this was really a “foreseeable risk” it wouldn't have happened. Now today it might be concidered a “foreseeable risk”, but what can the airlines really do about it? They've beefed up screening and security measures, but if some crazed terrorist group tried hard enough, there is no doubt in my mind that they could pull it off again. There will always be moments of insecurity or someone not paying attention, and a moment is all they need.

09-11-2003, 02:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	they (the gov't and the airlines) should have gotten these things together a long time ago and should have had some sort of guidelines and regulations to follow. they had something to follow but i don't think it's the fault of the airlines.

09-11-2003, 02:35 PM	#14 (permalink)
Booboo Insane	Suing the Airlines is like suing whoever built the world trade center.. hey if it wasn't there this wouldn't have happened! give me a break. __________________ "Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

09-11-2003, 04:18 PM	#15 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	Let me be a little more clear. The rules were already in place on 9/10. The airlines broke the rules. No, this is not like suing the builder of the WTC, or McDonalds, or placing the blame on someone else. This is blaming the sorry motherfuckers who broke the rules. If I ignore the rules about having a road-worthly vehicle, and my no-brake-having ass crashes into someone, that's my fucking fault. If I leave a loaded pistol on the sidewalk in front of my house, and some kid shoots himself in the head with it, I get a heaping helping of jail time. If you ignore the rules to protect your planes from being hijacked, and they get hijacked, that's your fault. It wan't a question of vigilance (or lack there of), or some esoteric measure of security. The airlines broke the rules, and people died as a result. __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.