[Paleo Conservative]

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

[oceanview]

shoe bomb.

[Paleo Conservative]

Here's another article about this case.

In Favor of Plaintiffs, U.S. District Court Rules that AA Flight 587 Victims Can Sue Under Maritime Law for 'Societal Loss'

NEW YORK, May 11 /PRNewswire/ -- The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, ruled on Tuesday that families of the passenger victims of the November 2001 crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens, NY, which killed 265 people and injured many others, can claim compensation under maritime law instead of New York law, and under maritime law can receive recovery for "loss of society." The decision therefore allows for evidence to be presented in their cases for loss of decedent's love, care and companionship. The effect of this ruling is that plaintiffs will be able to recover for non-pecuniary losses which, under NY law, would not be allowed.

Judge Robert W. Sweet agreed with plaintiffs' attorneys from Kreindler & Kreindler LLP that, in this case, maritime law should prevail. Plaintiffs argued that because the vertical fin of the Airbus A300 failed while the plane was over Jamaica Bay, the flight was inevitably doomed to crash at that moment, and therefore maritime law should apply as a guidepost to determine compensatory damages. The determinative fact was not where the plane ultimately crashed, but where it lost control and became doomed.

"Maritime law is a far more humane set of laws within which to litigate this case," said attorney Blanca I. Rodriguez of Kreindler. "Many victims of this tragedy were low income earning immigrants visiting relatives in the Dominican Republic, and the harsh limitations of New York compensatory damages law would not have allowed these families fair compensation. But beyond that, the ruling is fair under the law. The inevitability of this crash -- and therefore the resulting deaths -- was established over a body of water, and so maritime law must apply. In the fight for fairness to victims of aviation disasters, this decision represents a significant victory."

With respect to the ground victim cases, Judge Sweet also agreed with the plaintiffs' attorneys that New York law applied to these victims, and that under New York law they have a claim for punitive damages against American Airlines, a Texas Corporation, and Airbus Industrie G.I.E., a French company.

"Almost three dozen cases from this crash remain unsettled, and the effect of this ruling is to give these plaintiffs security that they are legally entitled to receive damages for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary losses," said attorney Robert J. Spragg of Kreindler.

The flight, originating from JFK International Airport, was en route to the Dominican Republic when it crashed soon after takeoff on November 12, 2001.

About Kreindler & Kreindler LLP

Founded in 1950, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP (http://www.kreindler.com/) is internationally recognized as the first and most prominent aviation law firm in the United States. The firm has been the leading plaintiff legal counsel on thousands of aviation cases, including major ones such as the September 11 terrorist attacks, Pan Am Lockerbie Flight 103, Korean Airlines Flight 007, American Airlines Flight 587, and many cases of small private and commercial crashes. Its ranks include airplane and helicopter pilots, engineers and other technical experts. Kreindler has offices in New York, New Jersey and Los Angeles, CA. For more information, contact 212-687-8181.

[G Larry]

"There can be no question that, but for the development of air travel, this trip — or some portion thereof — would have been conducted by a waterborne vessel and that it therefore bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity,"

and so it follows...
'There can be no question that, but for the development of a _____, your Uncle would have been your Aunt, and therefore.....'

What kind of stupid logic is this clown dishing out?

[Kozak]

"There can be no question that, but for the development of air travel, this trip — or some portion thereof — would have been conducted by a waterborne vessel and that it therefore bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity," the judge wrote in a 78-page opinion analyzing the issue.

This is a joke right? But for the development of feet the passengers could have used their fins to swim across the atlantic.

[Publius6961]

I sure hope that this "decision" is reversed.
There is something unsettling about the "if" preceding the 78 pages of legal gymnastics. The unintended consequences are huge.

"If" the tail hadn't broken off...
"If" the Atlantic Ocean had evaporated 10 years ago...

This "penumbra" crap has got to stop. It's bad enough when it happens in the Supreme Court.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Lawyers for the defendants — American Airlines, its Fort Worth, Texas-based parent, AMR Corp., and the plane's maker, Airbus Industrie G.I.E. — did not immediately return telephone messages for comment Tuesday

That's because they couldn't stop laughing long enough to answer the phone.

A piece of the plane happens to land in the water, and the judge says that makes it a maritime accident? It doesn't get much funnier than that....

[verity]

"The judge noted in his ruling that there was no direct precedent "

Tort lawyer welfare?