[Oldeconomybuyer]

I'm not a lawyer and a family member did not die on 911, but I don't see the merit in this lawsuit.

[ladtx]

Well, here we go. The terroists couldn't run the airlines out of business, but I'll bet the lawyers will sure give it a try.

[ambrose]

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

[Victor]

Perfect example of lawyers and client/moochers trying to filch some unearned loot.

Defense ought to move for summary judgement/dismissal right away.

[Dialup Llama]

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.

[VOA]

I'm not a lawyer and a family member did not die on 911, but I don't see the merit in this lawsuit.

Airlines had the discretion to arm their crews with real guns; a right that I think expired
sometime in mid-November.

They also didn't secure their pilot cabins, didn't keep even reasonable security checks
on people with access to the planes (take note of the many folks rounded up at Salt Lake
City airport just recently).

You'd think after what happened to Pan Am (killed off not only by de-regulation,
but also fallout from the Lockerbie situation), airlines would have told their executives
they'd have to settle for $5 million in incentives and salary...because
the airline needed $5 million of their $10 compensation in order to make their airliners
more secure.
I don't fully blame the airlines...people wanted cheap tickets and didn't fully think
through the reality that "cheap security" went with the deal.

[L.N. Smithee]

Normally I would be disgusted, but I am just saddened by this. Incredible.

[caisson71]

Here come the sharks. This is only the beginning.

[GingisK]

...but I don't see the merit in this lawsuit...

The airlines are ultimately responsible for the safety of thier passengers. Airport security agencies are hired by the airlines. El-Al security doesn't have security problems. American carriers have security problems because they fail to secure. Remember, federal incompetancy in airport security is a recent innovation.

[TexRef]

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.

The best way to increase airline security would be for each airline to have its OWN security -- that way people could make an educated choice of what airline they want to fly based on that airline's safety track record.

[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]

[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

[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%.

[Old Professer]

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

[rogercolleridge]

....wonder how much money it will take to bring her husband back....

[1Old Pro]

SHEESH, who should I sue because the terrorist attack cost New York billions in dircet costs and billions in indirect economic losses. Therefore, I could have lost income and my taxes could rise, not to mention the mental anquish and suffering. WHO DO I SUE ?

[RichInOC]

Reading about this suit is causing me pain and suffering. I think I'm going to have to sue Mrs. Mariani, her husband's estate, and their lawyers.