Widow of Sept. 11 Passenger Sues

rueters

[newsperson999]

NEW YORK (AP) - A woman whose husband died aboard one of the jetliners that slammed into the World Trade Center sued the airline Thursday, alleging company negligence led to the Sept. 11 hijacking.

Ellen Mariani of Derry, N.H., filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the southern district of New York. Her husband, Louis Mariani, 58, was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, the second plane to hit the center.

Her lawyer, Don Nolan, said he didn't know of any other such federal suits.

The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, said Ellen Mariani and her children have sustained ``substantial non-economic damages'' including ``loss of companionship, grief, sorrow, pain and anguish.''

The couple were taking separate flights to California to attend the wedding of Ellen Mariani's daughter. Initially, Louis Mariani had planned to stay home, thinking it was too expensive for them both to go. But his wife raised money through yard sales to buy him a surprise ticket.

Nolan said in a statement that the airline had a duty to ``exercise the highest degree of care'' for safety and should have stopped the hijackers from boarding the plane. He wouldn't elaborate on what he thinks the airline should have done differently.

Nolan said Mariani has decided not to apply for money from the federal Victims Compensation Fund, which is open only to those families who agree not to sue anyone for damages. ``Mrs. Mariani doesn't want the taxpayers' money,'' he said. ``She wants her day in court with United Airlines.'' A message left for comment with a spokeswoman at United Airlines was not immediately returned.
AFGHAN WAR NEWS WIRES..CLICK

[Dante3]

The repulsive, greedy Mrs. Mariani should be sued. Will she be claiming the airline was secretly supporting the terrorists? Who else might she sue to make a buck? Manufacturers of box-cutters? Or the stores which sold box-cutters to the terrorists? The travel agent who sold him a ticket on that flight?

[newzjunkey]

But everything they carried on board (boxcutters, etc.) was legal at the time.

The boxcutters, perhaps, but the airlines could have had other procedures, for example: they could have had secure cockpits. Either there were things they *might* have done differently or we're just as much sitting ducks for hijackers as we were on the 10th of Sept.

I support suing the same airlines, the airlines that whined and got taxpayer bailout dollars, the very same airlines who used campaign contributions to "bribe" the Gore commission into completely toothless anti-terror regulations so they could go on flying on the cheap, flying irresponsibly insecure flights.

Let a court decide, let these airlines have to defend their "records". This is the American way. No more white-washing of corporate responsibility! If United, or American, or some other carrier goes under for negligent behavior, I'll have no pity. Other carriers, untainted by such corporate stupidity, will rise up and take their places.

[gfactor]

but he's no less dead than if he'd gotten in a car wreck. Then who would she sue?

that depends on the circumstances of the wreck. plenty of them are due to negligence. bad example.

[newzjunkey]

Just wait until someone names the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey as a co-defendant, for building those towers in the path of those two aircraft.

I'm sure there's plenty of responsibility to investigate and pursue in the courts. I've wondered, like other freepers, about the tower evacuation plans. I've wondered why it appears hundreds of firefighters and other rescue workers were murdered because no one had an idea the buildings would fall. Who developed the response plan? This was never an impossibility--not even an implausible accident with so many airports in the area. Planning was evidently poor. Plenty of people watching in horror via television "knew" the buildings were coming down. It didn't take Freepers long to do crude but quick calculations to see the fuel-fed fire would burn hot enough to compromise the structural steel. Should there be no culpability, no concern for negilgence here?

Had the airlines installed secure cockpit doors--for crying outloud, we learned the Boeing aircraft cockpit doors all shared a standard key--there would have been no means of entry, no way to fly the aircraft into the towers or anywhere else.

I can't believe how many here are so eager to defend corporations that they can't even consider whether the corporations failed in their duties. I hope someone has the guts to find a way to put Gore in the hot seat over the campaign contributions which appear to have swayed his post TWA-800 safety commission toward toothless recommendations.

If there's provable negligence, let United and American (whiners for corporate welfare) go out of business. That's fine with me. Other airlines will rise up to the challenge and gladly take over their routes.

[princess leah]

She needs to sue the Al Queda organization and sue for their frozen assets funds! Let OBL's people pay!

[WatchOutForSnakes]

bump.....surprised this thread is still here. Thought you might be interested. Normally threads saying anything negative,or perceived as negative, about the attack victims is pulled.

[ElephantMan]

Right on. Total sympathy for her loss, but no sympathy whatsoever for trial lawyers trying to exploit the situation. There has been an enormous amount of money donated from people all over the country, making lawsuits unnecessary.

Morever, such a lawsuit is UNAMERICAN. It might even fall under "aid and comfort to the enemy". I'm sure this is unintentional, but think about it--if a jury awards a multi-million or even billion dollar award, United is out of business. That throws our economy into a further downward spiral, effecting not only the country at large, but the individual stock holders throughout the land (50% of the American public.)

Again, we're devastated by your loss, but respectfully say, "Thanks a lot lady."

[Iwo Jima]

The airlines were negligent in the following respects: 1) failing to have secure cockpit doors. 2) refusing to allow pilots or other approved persons on board to be armed. 3) insisting that in the event of a hijacking the crew follow a conciliatory, "don't fight back" approach. 4) failing to tell the passengers about any of the above.

These acts of negligence were a contributing cause, but not the sole cause, of the deaths of the passengers. But for these acts of negligence, the passengers would have survived the acts of terrorism and still be alive today.

If the issues are properly presented, I would expect the suit to be successful, even if the jury were to be composed of the 12 most critical posters on this thread.

[Iwo Jima]

You forgot No. 5: allowing terrorists posing as airline pilots to sit up in the cockpit as a "professional courtesy."

[YaYa123]

You said, "She should be suing the INS for letting known terrorists like Mohommed Atta roam the country at will while attending flight school."

NO!!! She should be suing Al Gore and Doris Meissner. Al Gore's ReInventing Government risky scheme cut back INS personnel, programs, eased off on entrance requirements for aliens, and allowed convicted felons into the country, by the thousands.

INS Commissioner Doris Meissner knew Gore's plan was designed to allow likely democrat voters into the country in time for the 96 election, she knew it would hurt the INS mission, but she supported him in congressional hearings.

[Iwo Jima]

Oh, yeah, I forgot that one. Thanks!

[gnarledmaw]

I hope she wins enough to bankrupt the airline. Then maybe American corporations will then put their money into running companies responsibly instead of using the money to buy congressmen if they know that they cant hide behind the federal regulations they paid for any more.

[mil-vet]

She should be suing Brady and Handgun control inc., if not for their pushing for restrictive gun laws, perhaps armed passengers could have stopped this tragedy.

Right On!! I've been saying the total "disarming" (fingernail clippers, even!!) of passengers is going the wrong way - If every qualified passenger was armed and carrying the proper ammunition for on-aircraft use, this would never have happened, and could never happen again!!

EVERY arguement against having as many passengers armed as possible is specious (just like all the BS the gun control fools promulgate)!!

9mm CCW - enough to cover me until I get back to my one-ton Texas crewcab dually pickup truck where the REAL artillery is stored - LOL!!

[Alberta's Child]

I used to have this attitude toward corporate liability, but in the last two weeks I've made a 180-degree turn and now believe that major corporations in some industries should be absolved of almost all liability.

I know it sounds insane, but what changed my mind was the EPA's announcement that they were going to force General Electric to pay the cost ($450 million or so) of cleaning up the Hudson River in New York near the sites of a couple of old GE plants. The EPA correctly claims that GE dumped millions of pounds of PCBs in the river over several decades, but what really pisses me off is that up until the time the plants closed GE was abiding by every Federal regulation involving the discharge of PCBs into waterways. When PCB discharges were outlawed in the early 1970s, GE closed the plants down.

GE's response to the EPA was as follows: "How the f#ck can you hold us responsible for this cleanup when we did everything you told us to do at the time?"

If there was a problem with the design of the buildings, then sue the sh!t out of the agency that sets building codes. If there was a problem with airport security, then sue the sh!t out of the FAA or whatever agency is responsible for airline security.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

She should sue the entire male gender. If men didn't shave, razor blades would not have been invented and could not have used to hijack the plane. (/sarcasm)

[DSHambone]

For want of a $300 revolver and 6 bullets - hundreds/maybe thousands died - those in charge of security did not think worst case and people died. Sounds like a worthy lawsuit to me....when you mess up, you have to face the punishment.

[pcl]

She should be suing bin Ladin and his orgainization. They have plenty of money in locked up accounts right now. That money should be going to the victims.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

NO!!! She should be suing Al Gore and Doris Meissner.

Works for me.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

She should be suing bin Ladin and his orgainization. They have plenty of money in locked up accounts right now. That money should be going to the victims.

I will second that!

[There's millions of'em]

I disagree. Since the Airlines were in compliance with the FAA's security related requirements they will be able to successfully argue that the level of security they provided was deemed to be adequate.

The US Government through the FAA has always been the determining authority in the area of airline security and safety. The FAA has a history of security regulations that are designed to give only the appearance of security to the uninformed traveller.

This situation is not new and it has been the rule regardless of who was the President.

You may recall that following the tragic PanAm 103 incident there was a Presidential Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. Since the PanAm 103 cause was conclusively proven to be a bomb in the checked luggage you might expect that some measurable improvement in the requirement to screen checked baggage would have come from this. We all know that nothing happened to actually improve security.

The airlines comply to the lowest level required by the FAA.

Americans have (unfortunately) never required the industry to provide anything but the minimum in safety and security. Examples, GPWD (ground proximity warning devices), Collision avoidance systems, explosives detection for checked and carry on luggage. You may be among those that think our airlines are equipped with a collision avoidance system that will alert a pilot to a threat in a non radar controlled environment.