When is a plane more like a boat?

The crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in a quiet residential neighborhood nearly five years ago is subject to general maritime laws, a judge ruled Tuesday, allowing potentially higher damages for dozens of people who sued. If the result was piquant, the rationale was priceless: U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet said it did not […]

The crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in a quiet residential neighborhood nearly five years ago is subject to general maritime laws, a judge ruled Tuesday, allowing potentially higher damages for dozens of people who sued.

If the result was piquant, the rationale was priceless:

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet said it did not matter that the plane crashed on land in Queens, killing 260 people on the plane and five on the ground. He noted that the plane was on a 1,500-mile transoceanic flight to the Dominican Republic.

“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.

Besides, a piece of the aircraft, though not one containing passengers, did land in Jamaica Bay. So that would seem to settle it. (Larry Neumeister, “Plane that struck Queens neighborhood subject to maritime laws”, AP/WINS, May 9) (via Taranto).

7 Comments

  • What’s next? Planes that have to travel overland being fined for breaking road speed limits I guess.

  • I guess that based on Judge Sweet’s thinking the lawsuits should be thrown out completely. You see, before there was sea travel people could not go anywhere by water or air, so no one was really traveling…

  • Before the invention of the car, some portion of the trip would have involved a horse…

  • And thus, Jeff, failing to maintain your car constitutes cruelty to animals!

    And Moriarty, I’m going to have to say no with respect to speed limits. As I understand it, speed limits only apply on roads. (Do correct me if I am mistaken.) As I don’t believe most air routes follow the course of major highways, I think airplanes are still ok on the speed thing.

  • Clearly, this case fits under the jurisdiction of the native american court. Before there were cars and horses and airplanes and ships, there were native americans. In fact, they are probably sueing for the land at the location of the crash site because they “sold the land unlawfully.” What does native american law say about this?

  • Serious (sort of) hypothetical question for a moment: How would a case of a flight from New York to San Francisco be handled? It’s going to travel over water just prior to landing at SFO, because the airport is practically right on the bay. Does that make it subject to maritime laws?

  • ” As I understand it, speed limits only apply on roads. (Do correct me if I am mistaken.) As I don’t believe most air routes follow the course of major highways, I think airplanes are still ok on the speed thing.”

    Yes, they’re fine on speeding fines.
    But they’d be liable to be subject to all kinds of tresspassing laws were it not for the fact that property law (at least in the US) explicitly states that property rights don’t extend to over a specific altitude over ground (this after some people in the early days of aviation tried to collect toll from airlines for flying aircraft over their property).