777 Crash and Fire at SFO

[TeeVee]

So John mostly loses after lawyer fees, Boeing loses, the public court system loses, who wins?

The ambulance chasing lawyers trying for a quick buck. Because they deal in volume.

I prey that Boeing takes this all the way and counter sues for legal costs and damages.

and here is the part you don't understand: lawyers that lose these types of cases LOSE. they lose time, they lose money, they lose credibility.

i've said it before and i'll say it again: thre are laws (rules of court, procedure, etc) for dealing with folks that file frivolous lawsuits. but for the laws to apply, the judge must find the case truly frivolous--not frivolous by evan's standards. there must be a "complete lack of justiciable issues" as the Florida law on this subject requires.

when this is the case, the court can, and in my mind, should, award fees and costs against the plaintiff and their attorneys.

you wanna blame lawyers? get educated. go to court and see all the judges--the supposedly impartial referees of all we hold dear and holy, consistently REFUSING to apply these rules.

[EconomyClass]

So, my 'guarded switch' boy.... ?? the legal system is at fault ? (Probably partially correct) ... so, you advocate COUNTER SUING ??????
ARE YOU ON DRUGS ????

You are creating the longevity of the system you are complaining about !!!



(ps, I believe all Lawyers are corrupt!)

I always love the "are you on drugs" response. The most amusing part of the discussion of my question. Truth is probably the answer is "yes" for most Americans. We mostly don't bother with street corner drugs. When our medical plan covers so many alternatives, why should we bother?

I do not believe "all lawyers are crooks". Known many lawyers in my lifetime. If you slip in the modification that we're talking lawyers who prosecute only lawsuits, then the percentage goes way way up. All the result of the lousy system giving them a percentage of settlement. It is incentive all the way for huge lawsuits with out of court settlement as the goal. They couldn't have designed a better system for bottom feeding.

As for suing Boeing, it is basically "you didn't create a plane that a complete idiot could fly". Why should Boeing expect any airline to hire a complete idiot? I'm sure their design engineers have some sort of threshold of intelligence they assume in the controls.

And yes, coutersuing is really like putting out a fire with accelerant. No deterrent at all. Just more work for more civil action lawyers. I wonder what legal framework would give ordinary people the power to confront business in court without inciting frivolous suits and staggering damage amounts? If you could design a plane that does what our planes do now, why can't a legal system preserve the power of the consumer without feeding the piranhas with law degrees?

[Evan]

and here is the part you don't understand: lawyers that lose these types of cases LOSE. they lose time, they lose money, they lose credibility.

Lose?! No they don't lose, they settle. Out of court. They win. It's a volume business. And why are you talking about court? It never goes to court.

TeeVee, don't take it personally. I don't think you are an ambulance chaser. You don't seem to know the first thing about it.

Hopefully this time it does go to court and those frivolous lawsuit penalties you speak of are put to good use.

[TeeVee]

Lose?! No they don't lose, they settle. Out of court. They win. It's a volume business. And why are you talking about court? It never goes to court.

TeeVee, don't take it personally. I don't think you are an ambulance chaser. You don't seem to know the first thing about it.

Hopefully this time it does go to court and those frivolous lawsuit penalties you speak of are put to good use.

i'm sure i know more about it than you do. perhaps, though, you should think a bit more before allowing diarrhea to spew from our keyboard.

you did read that evacuation slides inflated INWARD causing difficulty for people to get out, RIGHT? i suppose that is not a defect. and i suppose that if that DEFECT caused or contributed to injuries, no one should be held accountable and of course, no one deserves to be compensated, RIGHT?

you should also STFU since as of today, no lawsuit has actually been filed. rather, a request was made to the court to order that no evidence gets destroyed. yeah, cause we know that big corporations NEVER cover up their mistakes especially when those mistakes cost people their lives.

dude, you're pathetic. name me one case where a company settled with no lawsuit filed against it.

[TeeVee]

i've changed my mind. evan is right. in fact, i'll go a step further and propose something that will save everyone rather larger sums of money: let's do away with liability altogether.

guy t-bones you at an intersection because he was texting as opposed to driving? well, he didn't do it on purpose so it was an accident. no one should be liable for an accident.

county knowingly neglects to maintain a bridge and ten people die when it collapses? hey, it's not like the county officials intended for people to die. they were just trying to save the tax payers money. how can they possibly be wrong for being frugal?

doctor amputates the wrong extremity because he was unintentionally thinking about his last 9 holes on the golf course (or was it the nurse's three holes?) come on man!!! he didn't mean to ruin your life! after all, he took a hippocratic oath swearing to preserve and protect life. how could he be liable?

drug company makes a few math "errors" in calculating the likelihood of serious side-effects, including death? again, how can we hold them liable for math "errors," especially ones a college freshman could find??? it's not as if they were motivated by profit to look the other way or anything like that...

airline fails to follow aircraft manufacturer's instructions for servicing the aircraft and 200+ people die. does anyone REALLY think the airline intended to kill its own customers???? of course not! they were just trying to save money to keep airfares low--a truly gallant effort to be sure. as such, we should not hold them liable. in fact, we should probably thank them for keeping airfares low. oh, wait a minute! airfares have been rising steadily anyway??? ah, well maybe that's because fuel prices are through the roof? no? they're not? oh! wait! and executive compensation keeps going up by double digit percentages? ah, maybe that's why they needed to save money on maintenance. well, the executives are very important people. without them the airline won't run, so we better protect their salaries...

airline forces its pilots to work ridiculous schedules, which leads to long term stress and exhaustion. coupled with the fact that the same airline hires poorly trained pilots that barely passed their exams. pilot screws the pooch one day killing 50 people. pilot error and the airline shouldn't have to pay. after all, it's not as if they wanted their customers to die and they had to save money to keep the airline profitable and ultimately, it's the pilot's responsibility to perform flawlessly regardless of ALL external factors. sleep? who needs sleep?

and for the most important point of all: why should anyone have to pay for a dead person? i mean, they're dead right? money won't do them any good six feet under, and it won't bring them back, so let's just let dead people be dead people and go about our liability-free lives in peace, until one day we join the other dead people.

[TeeVee]

I wonder what legal framework would give ordinary people the power to confront business in court without inciting frivolous suits and staggering damage amounts? If you could design a plane that does what our planes do now, why can't a legal system preserve the power of the consumer without feeding the piranhas with law degrees?

first you call plaintiff's lawyers bottom feeders. then you want to put the same power and right that the lawyers have into the hands of consumers? yeah, no consumers ever came up with the idea to run a scam on a business until lawyers gave them the idea.

then you have this brilliant proposition that the consumers can confront the businesses in court without a lawsuit. yes. and the courtroom should be a football stadium. everyone just get on the field and work your problems out.

did it ever occur to you that it is and has been the actions of greedy, unconscionable business persons that has brought on the lawsuits?

agent orange will not harm people.
there's nothing wrong with the design of the ford pinto.
toyota cars have no problems with their accelerators.
there is no wire chafing problem in the f-16.
chemicals in love canal? what chemicals???
cigarettes do NOT cause lung cancer, or any other disease for that matter.
thalidomide is safe.

[Evan]

guy t-bones you at an intersection because he was texting as opposed to driving?

Then, later, in the hospital, a lawyer gives you his card and tells you to sue the company that made the car. I mean, what the hell.

Apparently a couple of the slides did deploy inside the (ex)aircraft. We do not know why so any speculation of liability is premature. But they don't like to wait around when there's the scent of money in the air do they.

------

First of all, evacuation slides are designed for emergency egress of an INTACT aircraft. Once you prang the tail off it and take it cartwheeling down the runway I think you might have voided the warranty...

The slides deploy when the armed doors open, i.e when the door pulls away from the girt bar attached to the floor, thus pulling the slide out from its bustle housing and triggering the gas canister. Now, one way to do this is to open the door. Another way to do this is to mangle the aircraft to the point that the floor collapses. Also, not locking the slide properly before flight or failing to maintain it may also cause premature slidejaculation.

ALL of these things are operator liability issues.

I don't see anything in the design that could be at fault, but IF it turns out to be design-related, then, AND ONLY THEN, should anyone be talking about litigation against Boeing.

[Jingogunner]

Why thet have 2 point seat belts

i have to ask, why do flight attendants have four point seatbelts, crew five point seatbelts and pax two point seatbelts that have not been used in automobiles in 40yrs?

If you put a passenger in a 5 point seat belt, he will not sit quietly for an hour or even 20 minutes. He'll take it off. If the pilots put the SB lights on for CAT or something, passengers won't be able to continue moving around in their seats, bending forward to diddle with the display etc or even just to fijit. They will inevitably shuck the belt to fidle with their busy primate figit digits. Better to have 2 point belts that will prevent flying forwards and also, in emergencies they are instructed to support their torsos with their legs by bending forwards to the 'brace' position. If your seat is going to bash down real hard in the vertical axis then the brace position, allowed by a 2 pointer, is better, it stops your spine being rammed into your brain.
The pilots have to be strapped in to apply what controls they can up to the last second. Where its not a crash emergency but just a storm or turbulence, then the 5 pointer is good.

[Jingogunner]

Judges are Cretins

and here is the part you don't understand: lawyers that lose these types of cases LOSE. they lose time, they lose money, they lose credibility.

i've said it before and i'll say it again: thre are laws (rules of court, procedure, etc) for dealing with folks that file frivolous lawsuits. but for the laws to apply, the judge must find the case truly frivolous--not frivolous by evan's standards. there must be a "complete lack of justiciable issues" as the Florida law on this subject requires.

when this is the case, the court can, and in my mind, should, award fees and costs against the plaintiff and their attorneys.

you wanna blame lawyers? get educated. go to court and see all the judges--the supposedly impartial referees of all we hold dear and holy, consistently REFUSING to apply these rules.

Hear Hear!

[EconomyClass]

first you call plaintiff's lawyers bottom feeders. then you want to put the same power and right that the lawyers have into the hands of consumers? yeah, no consumers ever came up with the idea to run a scam on a business until lawyers gave them the idea.

then you have this brilliant proposition that the consumers can confront the businesses in court without a lawsuit. yes. and the courtroom should be a football stadium. everyone just get on the field and work your problems out.

did it ever occur to you that it is and has been the actions of greedy, unconscionable business persons that has brought on the lawsuits?

agent orange will not harm people.
there's nothing wrong with the design of the ford pinto.
toyota cars have no problems with their accelerators.
there is no wire chafing problem in the f-16.
chemicals in love canal? what chemicals???
cigarettes do NOT cause lung cancer, or any other disease for that matter.
thalidomide is safe.

Um, wow, a lot of things are going on inside your head that you're projecting onto me. I am TOTALLY for liability. I don't know if John Doe's lawyers are bottom feeders or not. And I did start out by saying I've never personally dealt with a lawyer without having respect for them as a result. That being said, I haven't the slightest doubt there are bottom feeders out there. Every single profession on earth has an element that causes it to be disparaged. Deny that, and you can't be living in reality. Defend the good ones, and be honest about the ones that aren't. Just as not every pro football player would stoop to murder, not every lawyer would instigate a suit for PURELY self-serving purposes.

But there's no question we now have a state of affairs in the courts that allow bottom-feeders to be nourished and procreate. And that is in no one else's interest. Honest lawyers should target these people themselves since they support the popular notion that all lawyers are tainted. As for the current suit, I'm not able to properly judge its validity. I'm just wondering if it is or is not in every other passenger's best interest. Time will tell, I guess.

[TeeVee]

Then, later, in the hospital, a lawyer gives you his card and tells you to sue the company that made the car. I mean, what the hell.

I mean...solicitation of a client is illegal. i doubt very much this happened in this case, especially since the suit was filed 2000 miles from where the folks were in the hospital.

Apparently a couple of the slides did deploy inside the (ex)aircraft. We do not know why so any speculation of liability is premature. But they don't like to wait around when there's the scent of money in the air do they.

again, no suit has been filed. merely a petition for a court order to PRESERVE EVIDENCE so in the event they do discover the aircraft malfunctioned, boeing cannot conveniently say that the evidence has been lost or "inadvertently" destroyed. and again, educate yourself before spewing crap about which you have ZERO clue.
------

First of all, evacuation slides are designed for emergency egress of an INTACT aircraft. and you know this HOW? Once you prang the tail off it and take it cartwheeling down the runway I think you might have voided the warranty...

it did not cartwheel down the runway.

The slides deploy when the armed doors open, i.e when the door pulls away from the girt bar attached to the floor, thus pulling the slide out from its bustle housing and triggering the gas canister. Now, one way to do this is to open the door. Another way to do this is to mangle the aircraft to the point that the floor collapses. Also, not locking the slide properly before flight or failing to maintain it may also cause premature slidejaculation.

and if the slides did not malfunction and there is proof of this, there will be no verdict, judgment or settlement. you are guessing and calling people out based on your ASSumptions. so who is wrong here? a lawyer trying to preserve evidence, or some dude on the internet hiding behind a screen name???
ALL of these things are operator liability issues.

I don't see anything in the design that could be at fault, but IF it turns out to be design-related, then, AND ONLY THEN, should anyone be talking about litigation against Boeing.

investigations take YEARS. the statute of limitations may bar a lawsuit later on even if the evidence eventually shows absolute, intentional behavior on someone's part. so a wise lawyer files when it is appropriate and conducts discovery, waiting for the evidence to surface.

[TeeVee]

I do not believe "all lawyers are crooks". Known many lawyers in my lifetime. If you slip in the modification that we're talking lawyers who prosecute only lawsuits, then the percentage goes way way up. All the result of the lousy system giving them a percentage of settlement. It is incentive all the way for huge lawsuits with out of court settlement as the goal. They couldn't have designed a better system for bottom feeding.

so basically you believe that there are more shyster plaintiff attorneys than defense attorney. CLEARLY you have never experienced the absolute bullshit slung by the defense bar--you know, the guys that work for the insurance companies, whom we all know are nothing but honest. they never try to weasel out of paying a legitimate claim, and they NEVER hide behind their 1000+ attorney law firms for years trying to get away with not paying.

you too have had too much kool-aid. stay away from the fat wall busting pitcher guy!

[Evan]

so a wise lawyer files when it is appropriate

TeeVee, really, what the hell are you smoking? Destruction of evidence?!! Have you been hanging out with Northwester? The NTSB does not destroy evidence on a major aviation accident. Quite to the contrary, they meticulously preserve and analyze evidence. That is precisely what they do. They are federal investigators. They document everything.

Any destruction of evidence here would already be illegal so a court order to preserve it is meaningless posturing by a law firm bent on intimidation, seeking a monetary reward.

Why can't you see that?

[TeeVee]

TeeVee, really, what the hell are you smoking? Destruction of evidence?!! Have you been hanging out with Northwester? The NTSB does not destroy evidence on a major aviation accident. Quite to the contrary, they meticulously preserve and analyze evidence. That is precisely what they do. They are federal investigators. They document everything.

Any destruction of evidence here would already be illegal so a court order to preserve it is meaningless posturing by a law firm bent on intimidation, seeking a monetary reward.

Why can't you see that?

i smoke only hand rolled fine nicaraguan cigars which i import myself.

you on the other hand, as always, are not reading. rather, you are parsing my words to fit your agenda against attorneys. you completely ignored the last two lines on my post which answer your question.

lastly, if you really believe that the government reveals everything you're too gullible to deal with. i'm sure the evidence the attorney is seeking exceeds the scope of the accident investigation. the ntsb will likely concentrate on this aircraft, this event, this crew. if they find enough to explain the accident, the investigation will end there. the ntsb is not in the business of investigating criminal acts or liability which often go much further into an "interested party's" history and records.

but you know what, evan, you keep going through life with your head up your ass. it's a good place for it.

[Evan]

lastly, if you really believe that the government reveals everything you're too gullible to deal with. i'm sure the evidence the attorney is seeking exceeds the scope of the accident investigation. the ntsb will likely concentrate on this aircraft, this event, this crew. if they find enough to explain the accident, the investigation will end there.

Have you ever read an NTSB report on a major aviation accident? You can rest assured that every aspect of this crash, including anything that may have contributed to death or injury, will be exhaustively investigated. You can expect, for instance, a section describing the cause of internal inflation of the escape slides. They will go far beyond the cause of the accident to explain every collateral aspect of it.

What possible evidence exceeding the scope of the investigation, implicating Boeing as liable, that does not concern "this aircraft, this event, this crew" could you possibly be referring to?

Just answer me that. Please.

It's ambulance chasing. It's a rotten field.