Scott_J Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Sept 11 lawsuits can proceed From correspondents in New York September 10, 2003 A US federal judge ruled today that lawsuits can proceed that blame airlines, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Boeing Co for injuries and deaths in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 49 page ruling by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein was based on the cases of about 70 of the injured and representatives of those who died in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the crash of a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania. He said the Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Centre property, "has not shown that it will prove its defence of governmental immunity as to negligence allegations made by WTC occupants". The defendants had argued that the lawsuits against them should be dismissed because they had no duty to anticipate and guard against deliberate and suicidal aircraft crashes into the towers and because any alleged negligence on their part was not the cause of the deaths and injuries. 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 said Boeing should have designed its cockpit door to prevent hijackers from invading the cockpit. The plaintiffs had said that American and United Airlines and the Port Authority were legally responsible to protect people on the ground when the hijacked aircraft smashed into the twin towers, causing them to collapse. 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. December 22 is the last day families may apply to the fund, created by the US 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, 2275 claims had been filed. But roughly 1700 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 $US1.5 million ($2.32 million), with the highest award $US6.8 million ($10.52 million). The minimum payout is $US250,000 ($386,877). The fund has made offers averaging $US1.41 million ($2.18 million) to 398 families thus far. About 1600 families have filed papers stating an interest in applying for the fund. The Associated Press http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7223059%255E1702,00.html All the lawyers out there please explain this shit to me. For some reason this does not compute 2+2=5? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 sisu_suomi said: All the lawyers out there please explain this shit to me. Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 How about suing the HIJACKERS? Is it just me, or is the legal system in this country fucked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 fuck no, the hijackers are the hapless victims ban airplanes - airplanes kill people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 trask said: fuck no, the hijackers are the hapless victims ban airplanes - airplanes kill people KEWL THEN AT THE SAME TIME WHY DONT YOU TURN IN YOUR COMPENSATORS...OOPS I MEAN YOUR GUNS TOO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa_Eagle Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 The plaintiffs had said that American and United Airlines and the Port Authority were legally responsible to protect people on the ground when the hijacked aircraft smashed into the twin towers, causing them to collapse. This is rediculous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 That's our system. With regard to public safety, I believe there are roughly three choices: (1) exhaustive governmental regulation with real enforcement (2) responsibility is to be determined by individual lawsuits (3) government, business, and your neighbor are free to hurt you or to be as irresponsible as they like, with no consequences. Yes, at a glance it would seem absurd to hold the Port Authority or Boeing responsible for 911 -- unless of course it turns out (for example) that the Port Authority knew the buildings were going to fail as soon as the planes hit them and they decided not to warn the inhabitants, or that Boeing could have installed hijacker-proof doors for little extra cost but decided not to do so without weighing the potential benefit. Do you know anything about the issues being addressed in these lawsuits? Do you know anything about the circumstances of specific plaintiffs? Go to Rush Limbaugh.Com to find out how messed up our tort system is and then come back to spew the spray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 unless of course it turns out (for example) that the Port Authority knew the buildings were going to fail as soon as the planes hit them and they decided not to warn the inhabitants, or that Boeing could have installed hijacker-proof doors for little extra cost but decided not to do so without weighing the potential benefit. Do you know anything about the issues being addressed in these lawsuits? Do you know anything about the circumstances of specific plaintiffs? As a civil engineer (who admittedly hasn't done shit in that field in years) I would venture to guess that the answer, matt, is that every civilian building in the world would collapse if hit by a fully-fueled B767. I think sisu's question might be: What has changed since, say, the 1960s in our culture that makes people believe that a monetary payout is justified for enduring disaster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Would have to agree with you on this one. It's not like they weren't going to get any money. The Federal compensation fund is pretty generous, they just want more money that what the fund would offer. Not sure how the WTC is to blame, seems that there aren't too many structures that could withstand that, other than the casing on a nuclear power plant core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 A few years ago, a certain auto manufacturer made a certain auto that qualified as a passenger auto in its 2WD configuration and an SUV in its 4WD configuration. Aside from the above difference the only other difference was the presence of side-impact door beams in the 2WD version (required). Because the 4WD version met qualifications for an SUV it did not have to meet the more stringent safety requirements of the passenger auto. Rather than just include the side-impact doorbeams in the 4WD version the manufacturer chose to save a few bucks (I seem to recall that is was a net cost of less than $200). Do you think the manufacturer should be sued for saving a few bucks on the 4WD version? The parents of the kids injured in the T-bone accident sure did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa_Eagle Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Jim said: Would have to agree with you on this one. It's not like they weren't going to get any money. The Federal compensation fund is pretty generous, they just want more money that what the fund would offer. Not sure how the WTC is to blame, seems that there aren't too many structures that could withstand that, other than the casing on a nuclear power plant core. agreed. This would be funny if it wasn't true. Holding people accountable for something inconceivable is rather laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 RobBob said: I think sisu's question might be: What has changed since, say, the 1960s in our culture that makes people believe that a monetary payout is justified for enduring disaster? Good question. Do you think the answer is that nobody wants to take responsibility for theirself or that trial lawyers have a stangle hold on the democratic party, or might it be something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 mattp said: RobBob said: I think sisu's question might be: What has changed since, say, the 1960s in our culture that makes people believe that a monetary payout is justified for enduring disaster? Good question. Do you think the answer is that nobody wants to take responsibility for theirself or that trial lawyers have a stangle hold on the democratic party, or might it be something else? Unhealthy symbiosis between the two IMO.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_J Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 rbw1966 said: A few years ago, a certain auto manufacturer made a certain auto that qualified as a passenger auto in its 2WD configuration and an SUV in its 4WD configuration. Aside from the above difference the only other difference was the presence of side-impact door beams in the 2WD version (required). Because the 4WD version met qualifications for an SUV it did not have to meet the more stringent safety requirements of the passenger auto. Rather than just include the side-impact doorbeams in the 4WD version the manufacturer chose to save a few bucks (I seem to recall that is was a net cost of less than $200). Do you think the manufacturer should be sued for saving a few bucks on the 4WD version? The parents of the kids injured in the T-bone accident sure did. Your comparison is not even close if that is what you are trying to do. Your example is the total disregard for something that was going to happen...the T-bone accident. (I agree with you on this example but not on the 911 attack) Public buildings are designed to withstand what ever engineers consider "normal and expected" stress and strains. A passenger jet is not "normal"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 erik said: trask said: fuck no, the hijackers are the hapless victims ban airplanes - airplanes kill people KEWL THEN AT THE SAME TIME WHY DONT YOU TURN IN YOUR COMPENSATORS...OOPS I MEAN YOUR GUNS TOO! why don't you suck my dick - again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 My guess is the replacement structure would not survive this assault either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Sisu-- My example was responding to the criticism that the airlines should have constructed stronger doors on the airplanes. Its foreseeable by the airlines that a hijacker will try and gain entry to the cockpit--just as its foreseeable that a T-bone collision will occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 I think you can sue anyone you want to, unless I'm mistaken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 iain said: I think you can sue anyone you want to, unless I'm mistaken? You're mistaken about most shit, but you're right about this one. Congratulations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 iain said: I think you can sue anyone you want to, unless I'm mistaken? Yep, but it can very easliy be thrown out if the judge thinks it's frivolous. Just as Fox News. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 iain said: sisu_suomi said: All the lawyers out there please explain this shit to me. Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers. Funny, as soon as I saw this post all I could think was how Sisu's potty mouth has gone down the shitter. In the past he would have said shit like: "what kind of s*&t is this?" Poor sisu, giving into peer pressure. Where's that conservative individualism, old boy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_J Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 E-rock said: iain said: sisu_suomi said: All the lawyers out there please explain this shit to me. Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers. Funny, as soon as I saw this post all I could think was how Sisu's potty mouth has gone down the shitter. In the past he would have said shit like: "what kind of s*&t is this?" Poor sisu, giving into peer pressure. Where's that conservative individualism, old boy? I'm on a public computer in a photography class surrounded by 17-18 year old boys and girls. I have to be on my best behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 sisu_suomi said: E-rock said: iain said: sisu_suomi said: All the lawyers out there please explain this shit to me. Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers. Funny, as soon as I saw this post all I could think was how Sisu's potty mouth has gone down the shitter. In the past he would have said shit like: "what kind of s*&t is this?" Poor sisu, giving into peer pressure. Where's that conservative individualism, old boy? I'm on a public computer in a pornography class surrounded by 17-18 year old boys and girls. I have to be on my best behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Good question. Do you think the answer is that nobody wants to take responsibility for theirself or that trial lawyers have a stangle hold on the democratic party, or might it be something else? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unhealthy symbiosis between the two IMO.... mattp, I think JayB nailed it (symbiosis between culture change to 'victim mentality' and trial lawyers' unrestrained expansion of their 'markets') But I'm not sure it's partisan at all...aren't most politicians degreed in law, and not in a mood to restrict awards for 'victims?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 RobBob said: I think JayB nailed it (symbiosis between culture change to 'victim mentality' and trial lawyers' unrestrained expansion of their 'markets') But I'm not sure it's partisan at all...aren't most politicians degreed in law, and not in a mood to restrict awards for 'victims?' Good. Now that we have established that factors like insurance company practices, regulatory climate, and irresponsible business practices have nothing to do with litigation we can move on to talk about how to fix the system. Let me guess: tort reform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.