Sometimes People Suck

#101
#101
ridethelightening said:
In this scenario, shouldn't the pilot be the one held liable? Isn't he the man holding the steering wheel flying the plane into the geese?

While it is the majority's opinion, lawyers not withstanding, that all involved should fall at the pilot's feet and be thankful they are alive, some will always feel they are entitled to more. It's the "American" way.

And back to the scenario above, if my friend tried to hold me liable for a deer coming out of nowhere and injuring him while in my car, I would be in jail for more than failing to pay him for anything.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that your friend wouldn't be injured. Only injury, I believe, was a cut on a Stewardess.
 
#103
#103
Rasputin_Vol said:
How can you compare getting hit with a brick in the head to getting your feet a little wet in the Hudson River?
Click to expand...

I don't. The difference, however, is in the amount of the award and not liability for the action, which in both examples would be erased because the offending party took steps to mitigate the harm.

Look, I think the operator of the airline has a responsibility to keep their planes in the air. I think a party that causes damages to another party by not living up to their responsibilies has an obligation to make up for them, even if they took steps to keep the damages from being very bad. The law happens to agree with me, which I don't really see as a sign that the legal system in this country is fatally flawed.
 
#104
#104
cotton said:
I don't. The difference, however, is in the amount of the award and not liability for the action, which in both examples would be erased because the offending party took steps to mitigate the harm.

Look, I think the operator of the airline has a responsibility to keep their planes in the air. I think a party that causes damages to another party by not living up to their responsibilies has an obligation to make up for them, even if they took steps to keep the damages from being very bad. The law happens to agree with me, which I don't really see as a sign that the legal system in this country is fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

So you think it would be entirely fair if you were driving a car (you have the legal responsibility as the operator/owner of said vehicle) and a deer hit your car (no time to react safely) to be sued because the accident caused mental stress to the passengers? That's all this comes down to.


No injuries.
Nothing you, as the primary operator/owner did to exacerbate it (speed, not paying attention to the road, tires not inflated properly, etc).
 
#105
#105
DC Vol said:
So you think it would be entirely fair if you were driving a car (you have the legal responsibility as the operator/owner of said vehicle) and a deer hit your car (no time to react safely) to be sued because the accident caused mental stress to the passengers? That's all this comes down to.


No injuries.
Nothing you, as the primary operator/owner did to exacerbate it (speed, not paying attention to the road, tires not inflated properly, etc).
Click to expand...

Again, you are talking about the amount of the award, not liability. What if your passenger had his arm severed from his body? Would you be liable then? Yes, you surely would. The fact that he didn't experience very much harm is reflected in the amount you owe him, not in your responsibility for his injuries. In the example you give, the amount would be so low that there is no sense in him pursuing it. The passengers on the plane experienced more, although it probably is not an extremely large amount.
 
#107
#107
cotton said:
Again, you are talking about the amount of the award, not liability. What if your passenger had his arm severed from his body? Would you be liable then? Yes, you surely would. The fact that he didn't experience very much harm is reflected in the amount you owe him, not in your responsibility for his injuries. In the example you give, the amount would be so low that there is no sense in him pursuing it. The passengers on the plane experienced more, although it probably is not an extremely large amount.
Click to expand...

No one was injured. Stick to the argument. If someone had been injured, I wouldn't have a problem.


They're suing for b.s. "emotional distress" and you agree with them because the pilot wasn't omniscient.
 
#108
#108
DC Vol said:
No one was injured. Stick to the argument. If someone had been injured, I wouldn't have a problem.


They're suing for b.s. "emotional distress" and you agree with them because the pilot wasn't omniscient.
Click to expand...

I am sticking to the argument, you just don't seem to be able to understand what it is. I haven't seen where anyone has sued, nor listed "emotional distress" as a cause of action, and nowhere in these pages will you find a single instance where I have blamed the pilot.

The plane crashed into the Hudson. The passengers didn't want to crash into the Hudson. That in itself is harm. It isn't limited to just physical injury. It might not be that much, but whatever level it is, the airline is liable for it.
 
Last edited:
#109
#109
this would be like suing the world trade center because of 9/11 even if a WTC employee sucessfully evacuated the two building before they collapsed.
 
#110
#110
cotton said:
I am sticking to the argument, you just don't seem to be able to understand what it is. I haven't seen where anyone has sued, nor listed "emotional distress" as a cause of action, and nowhere in these pages will you find a single instance where I have blamed the pilot.

The plane crashed into the Hudson. The passengers didn't want to crash into the Hudson. That in itself is harm. It isn't limited to just physical injury. It might not be that much, but whatever level it is, the airline is liable for it.
Click to expand...

The only thing they should be liable for is damaged/lost luggage, the plane tix price and transportation to their destination or back home... and any medical costs associated with the landing.
 
#113
#113
#114
#114
VolDad said:
They were Canadian Geese. Sue Canada!


.
Click to expand...

The correct name is Canada Geese, no possession is implied.


What this boils down to is the majority of people feel a company is liable whenever an accident occurs, whether the company actually was at fault. It is based on greed.

The laws favor this attitude because most of the laws are written by lawyers who are the main beneficiaries in these class action suits. The attorneys almost always receive more than any individual plaintiff.
 
#115
#115
BigPapaVol said:
I absolutely think they do in the event of pilot error or maintenance negligence. If the geese that destroyed the engine were easily avoidable, I'd say there is a case.

From what I've read about the flight thus far, I'd say we're witnessing our freeloader system in action.
Click to expand...

In all actuality there is negligence on the side of Airbus. If you can find a pilot that would fly an airbus over a boeing I'll buy you a coke.

The problem with the engine was an electronic sensor telling the starter to not work (in semi-layman's terms). In a Boeing the exact bird strike would have been a minor problem because the call to restrart the engine is an actual cable from the deck. Not a computer making the decision that the engine will not spool back up.
 
#116
#116
My mother is actually writing her 3rd book about the events of this crash. She said that some of the passengers wanted thousands of dollars for their interviews, and she refused. It's amazing how greedy people get in the wake of tragedy. Apparently, everything has a pricetag on it.

*edit* This is not her 3d book on THIS subject, just the 3d overall book she has written (the others were on business ethics - page turners, I know)
 
Last edited:
#117
#117
Volingatorland said:
My mother is actually writing her 3rd book about the events of this crash. She said that some of the passengers wanted thousands of dollars for their interviews, and she refused. It's amazing how greedy people get in the wake of tragedy. Apparently, everything has a pricetag on it.

*edit* This is not her 3d book on THIS subject, just the 3d overall book she has written (the others were on business ethics - page turners, I know)
Click to expand...

What was the "wake of tragedy" here?
 
#118
#118
I dont see what the big problem is...

If you survive a plane crash I thinks its fair to say you should get $50k-$100K. I mean the airlines pay insurance for a reason... and its not like the insurance companies have had to pay out a lot of claims lately. You have no idea how scary that minute or two must have been.

and

if you are going to write a book on my survival story, I am going to want some cash too, sorry.

BTW The girl who was the sole survivor of NW 255 (she lost her whole family at the age of 5) got $25 Million tax free and she recently graduated from Bama, so just to put it in perspective

Northwest Airlines Flight 255 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#120
#120
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I dont see what the big problem is...

If you survive a plane crash I thinks its fair to say you should get $50k-$100K. I mean the airlines pay insurance for a reason... and its not like the insurance companies have had to pay out a lot of claims lately. You have no idea how scary that minute or two must have been.

and

if you are going to write a book on my survival story, I am going to want some cash too, sorry.

BTW The girl who was the sole survivor of NW 255 (she lost her whole family at the age of 5) got $25 Million tax free and she recently graduated from Bama, so just to put it in perspective

Northwest Airlines Flight 255 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The problem is no one died, and the crash was not a result of mechanical failure or pilot error. It was an act of "god"

The way I've heard it put best is:

"If a deer jumps in front of your car, you wouldn't hold the manufacturer of the vehicle responsible, would you?"
 
#121
#121
cotton said:
They didn't. It just wasn't as harmful as it could have been.

Who, then, should be responsible for bearing the loss, or incurring the harm, resulting from an "act of nature" when you are a ticketed passenger on an airline? Your suggestion puts all of the responsibility on the passenger, who absolutely did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't know. They chose the wrong flight:)
 
#122
#122
Rasputin_Vol said:
The only thing they should be liable for is damaged/lost luggage, the plane tix price and transportation to their destination or back home... and any medical costs associated with the landing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But some will use it as an excuse to get free money. That's the problem with America today. Let's sue our way to wealth....:crazy:
 
#123
#123
Didnt read all the other posts. But how about a thank you to the pilot & crew? Saved your sorry ass from death And you want to sue over some ducks? Thank your lucky stars you can stil kiss your kids & grandkids.
 
#124
#124
volger said:
didnt read all the other posts. But how about a thank you to the pilot & crew? Saved your sorry ass from death and you want to sue over some ducks? Thank your lucky stars you can stil kiss your kids & grandkids.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top