United Sued for WTC Hijacking Attack

Reuters ^ | 12-20-01

[Oldeconomybuyer]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The widow of a New Hampshire man who was a passenger on the United Air Lines flight that slammed into the World Trade Center filed on Thursday what is believed to be the first suit against an airline stemming from the Sept. 11 attacks.

[LincolnLover]

Let's see: United, along with other airlines, scurry in the aftermath of 9/11 to wrap themselves in the flag and talk ominously of massive layoffs and bankruptcy in order to receive billions from the government, proceed to lay off tens of thousands anyway, make no appreciable improvement to either airport or onboard security over the past 90 days, entice Americans to fly again in their smarmy, soothing TV commercials, and the airlines and their apologists express surprise when a grieving widow files a wrongful death suit as a result of the wrongful death of a lost spouse-?

The contrast between United's response to it's pathetic security failures of 9/11 and, say, Tylenol's response to terror 20 years ago seems striking.

[pray4liberty]

I was wondering how long this was going to take.[/sarcasm]

[gumbo]

The individual airlines are (were) responsible for airport security. The individual airlines are responsible for on plane security...

Yes, but there's nothing more the airlines could have done using pre-9/11 security standards that would have prevented the event.

A judge applying the "reasonable man" rule, using pre-9/11 standards, would have to throw this out, IMO.

[LincolnLover]

"She should add the FAA to her suit because that's who is really at fault here. THEY are the ones that came up with ridiculous security rules and let the airlines off when they were caught not even abiding by those rules."

Surely you aren't naive enough to believe that airline-related PAC's somehow have not exerted pressure upon Congress (who funds the FAA, last I checked) the past 20 years or so, if not longer, to skimp on reasonable airline security measures so that they could turn around airplanes faster and keep costs down, right-?

[US admirer]

If you ever want to witness sphistry defined, listen to a plaintiff attorney, any plaintiff attorney, debate the merit of any lawsuit. If you want to witness apoplexy, listen to any plaintiff attorney, respond to a proposal to cap damage awards.

[pray4liberty]

She should try getting her money from the Red Cross and the United Way fund, first.

[US admirer]

oops... sphistry = sophistry

[VOA]

Don't get me wrong...I'm not cheer-leading for this sort of lawsuit.
But I was miffed at the airlines to find out after 9-11 what security measures were
available to them...and they didn't take the matters seriously.

Unless some really damning documents appear (e.g., show the airlines were really
aware of such threats and failed to take preventive measures), I hope these
sort of lawsuits get tossed due to some "acts of War/G-d" reason...or get
settled for very reasonable sums.

But, given the talents/greed of some lawyers (and clients), I'm not optimistic about
a good or reasonable outcome.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

The individual airlines are (were) responsible for airport security

I don't think so.

[PortugeeJoe]

In liberal-speak, the lawyers are the enablers.

[Kozak]

The merit is that the airlines failed to provide proper security (or any security) even though there had been a long string of cockpit intrusion attempts in recent years.

The airlines all operate under federal regulations. They met those regulations for airport security and aircraft design. The consensus before 9-11 was to cooperate with hijackers as in the past that had been the safest course. Now that suicide hijacking is the model all that has changed. The lawsuits are baseless, and will only do harm to an industry on the ropes.

[LincolnLover]

I am as anti-lawyer as any other reasonable person, but one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a great deal of good has come, in the last century alone, from appropriate legal recourse.

I'm really surprised that I am in such a distinct minority among you folks on this issue, but the slamming of 4 hijacked airliners into public buildings and/or the ground and a one-in-a-lifetime or so FALLING OFF of a plane's tail (and, still to this day, no coherent reason as to why!!) has lowered my confidence in the airline's ability to police themselves and the FAA's ability to competently oversee important matters to nearly zero.

There are a number of frivolously-filed lawsuits in this country, but suits like this one (or the mere threat of suits like this one) may prove effective in forcing some of the changes we've expected since 9/11 yet not seen implemented or even planned for in recent weeks.

Full Disclosure: I have flown frequently since Sept. 11 (5 times), so I am no "head-stuck-in-the-sand" type who doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of airport security. The wide range in quality among the airports I've visited is not only noticeable but quite upsetting. There are things that I was made to do PRIOR TO Sept. 11 that I have NOT been asked to do since (e.g., actually turn-on a cell-phone or laptop to prove that it is functioning, and not merely a hollowed-out shell carrying something sinister inside.)

For those interested, here's how I rank the airports I've visited in the past 6 weeks (order of quality of security measures employed): 1.-Tucson, Az. 2.-Chicago 3.-Houston 4.-New Orleans.

[Iron Eagle]

Well, my guess is that you have not read the entire suit either, merely a report on it. I don't see why this suit would surprise anyone. First, you have a greiving family member who lost a loved one in a horrible many. Second, the loved one was completely innocent. (A great and rare plaintiff). Third, the Airlines are charged with saftey and screening. Thus, this action undoubtedly alleges the failure of some duty the airline had to properly check, scan, and screen passengers.

I haven't read the suit either, but I would guess there is a long laundry list of factual allegations related to security breaches and failures that contributed to the boarding and taking of the plane. There may even be allegations of insider help, including the failure to properly screen the backgrounds of personel with access to sensitive areas.

This suit might be distasteful, but I can't imagine that it is frivolous unde the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's notice pleading requirements.

The airlines have much to answer for here. And, lawyers, whether you like it or not, play a role by helping to hold these companies feet to the fire for failing in their duties.

Let's read the complaint before we start throwing rocks. Everyone hates lawyers, except their own. It's like Congressman, every one hates "the Congress", yet individual Copngress incumbants enjoy a re-election rate of 90%.

[GingisK]

...nothing more the airlines could have done using pre-9/11 security standards...

I beg to differ. Those are 'minimum standards'. Airline conpanies have always been free to implement higher standards, especially in selecting the security personnel. It wouldn't take much effort to implement effective screening and security procedures. The choice the airline companies made was to accept the 'window dressing' form of security.

[Iron Eagle]

If you want to articulate an argument for a cap on damages, then make one. But make it logically and persuasively. Use of your thesaurus doesn't really make the point.

In the personal injury or medical malpractice cases you've tried, tell us how caps would have helped or hurt. What are the arguments pro and con?

[US admirer]

Is it possible that you might be biased in your assesment?

Iron Eagle bio: Attorney --- commercial litigation.

[Old Professer]

Never use the words lawyer and merit in the same sentence.

[Old Professer]

This is a federally regulated issue as it applies to "cockpit-security," the airlines were in compliance at the time of the incident.

[GingisK]

The individual airlines are (were) responsible for airport security. I don't think so.

It is so. Security is a personnal responsibility. Anyone who expects quality security measures out of an entity that operates the INS or the Postal System is going to suffer disappointment.

Any moron could have observed that airport security measures in the US were and continue to be 'window dressing'.

[GingisK]

...the airlines were in compliance at the time of the incident

I classify this along with the expulsion of school children for 'tweety bird key chain' violations. Hiding behind goofy laws should not be a substitute for rational thought. Anyone with any sort of real-world experience could adopt real security measures without federal 'help'. What ever happened to self-reliance and a sense of personal responsibility? Shall we rely on Capital Hill to regulate every facit of life, or sit on our butts when they don't provide 'operating instructions' for getting out of chairs?