What, are they going to sue the Canadian geese? They survived a miracle. Thanks to the incredible skills of the pilot and co-pilot, they are alive. Anyone who sues should be ashamed of themselves.
Longshot…once that pilot is on a witness stand and tells his story, a jury is going to think, “Wow, that guy deserves a medal,” his heroism would be cognitively transferred to the defendants and the case(s) would not go well for plaintiffs. Even if that guy said, “Hell yeah I steered that jet in to those damned birds…I hate those geese…always causing problems for pilots…” the defense would still have an easy case.
Saying you can sue for anything doesn’t mean you can succeed.
Indeed. The instant it happens, if it does, the author of the suit will face such a torrent of internet ridicule that he might as well change his name to Keyword Frivolous.
How many sanctions actually happen for frivolous suits? I mean what is the exact ratio? I hear about lots of frivolous sounding cases that are allowed to proceed and get lots of money for the lawyers (especially many if not most class action suits), but not much about sanctions for frivolous suits.
One suit that comes to mind was a guy in Mass. I think that tried to sue a coat company because he pulled the elastic strings to tighten his hood while walking his dog and then let go of the elastics and the plastic stopper thing hit him in the teeth causing him to lose one.
The judge in the case told him that any reasonable person realizes that when you pull an elastic anything to its limit and let go it will come back fast and hard. I think the judge dismissed it.
How many sanctions actually happen for frivolous suits? I mean what is the exact ratio?
1:1. Of course, the legal definition of frivolous is “not well grounded in fact and law” or the like, and requires a judicial finding. Your definition may be different.
Often these days, the internet sanctions frivolous plaintiffs and their lawyers more effectively than any judge could. Google “Tehmina Haque”. Her internet profile used to indicate a prestigious ophthalmology practice. Now it indicates that and a whole lot more. Her patients and colleagues certainly know about her lawsuit.
“True. And you can also be sanctioned in every state for having brought a frivolous claim. Saying you can sue for anything doesn’t mean you can succeed.”
And in the land of Sheldon Silver, how many times is a lawyer sanctioned for frivolous lawsuit? Even the infamous Pearson “Missing Pants” lawsuit is back in court. If you think Roy Pearson will be sanctioned by the court, I’d advise against breath-holding.
So many people to sue in this case: the airline (for obvious reasons) The pilot (also for obvious reasons) The aircraft manufacturer (for not goose-proofing the engines) the airport (for having the temerity to be located on a goose flightpath) Canada (for allowing its geese to interfere with American air traffic) Me (no doubt for some obscure reason)
I am a plaintiff’s lawyer and I know a little bit about aviation. I certainly hope none of those folks on Flight 1549 sue. They are alive due to the outstanding skill and judgment of the captain. And hitting birds is the definition of an accident anyway—where is the negligence?
Who knows what the investigation will reveal? There could be negligence. What if there was prior information about birds flying in formation along the same flight path for Flight 1549? What if the bird strike is determined to have been within the engine’s capacity but poor maintenance or design defects resulted in weakened engines? If there was prior information about birds flying in formation along the same flight path, then the litigants should make room for Captain Sullenberger. Such a professional and competent pilot will be very unhappy and will feel betrayed. When people feel like that, they go to lawyers.
16 Comments
My understanding is that in the US, you can find a lawyer (or DIY) to sue for anything.
Makes you wonder what the motivation is to save anybody’s life.
Well, you can sue for failure to save your life too. At least, your relicts can.
Bob
What, are they going to sue the Canadian geese? They survived a miracle. Thanks to the incredible skills of the pilot and co-pilot, they are alive. Anyone who sues should be ashamed of themselves.
Captain Sullenberger charged with goose poaching!
See http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/us-airways-violates-federal-migratory-bird-laws/
Never underestimate the avarice of lawyers.
Longshot…once that pilot is on a witness stand and tells his story, a jury is going to think, “Wow, that guy deserves a medal,” his heroism would be cognitively transferred to the defendants and the case(s) would not go well for plaintiffs. Even if that guy said, “Hell yeah I steered that jet in to those damned birds…I hate those geese…always causing problems for pilots…” the defense would still have an easy case.
My understanding is that in the US, you can find a lawyer (or DIY) to sue for anything.
True. And you can also be sanctioned in every state for having brought a frivolous claim.
Saying you can sue for anything doesn’t mean you can succeed.
Indeed. The instant it happens, if it does, the author of the suit will face such a torrent of internet ridicule that he might as well change his name to Keyword Frivolous.
How many sanctions actually happen for frivolous suits? I mean what is the exact ratio? I hear about lots of frivolous sounding cases that are allowed to proceed and get lots of money for the lawyers (especially many if not most class action suits), but not much about sanctions for frivolous suits.
One suit that comes to mind was a guy in Mass. I think that tried to sue a coat company because he pulled the elastic strings to tighten his hood while walking his dog and then let go of the elastics and the plastic stopper thing hit him in the teeth causing him to lose one.
The judge in the case told him that any reasonable person realizes that when you pull an elastic anything to its limit and let go it will come back fast and hard. I think the judge dismissed it.
1:1. Of course, the legal definition of frivolous is “not well grounded in fact and law” or the like, and requires a judicial finding. Your definition may be different.
Often these days, the internet sanctions frivolous plaintiffs and their lawyers more effectively than any judge could. Google “Tehmina Haque”. Her internet profile used to indicate a prestigious ophthalmology practice. Now it indicates that and a whole lot more. Her patients and colleagues certainly know about her lawsuit.
Eric Turkewitz wrote:
“True. And you can also be sanctioned in every state for having brought a frivolous claim. Saying you can sue for anything doesn’t mean you can succeed.”
And in the land of Sheldon Silver, how many times is a lawyer sanctioned for frivolous lawsuit? Even the infamous Pearson “Missing Pants” lawsuit is back in court. If you think Roy Pearson will be sanctioned by the court, I’d advise against breath-holding.
And how often does the victim in a frivolous suit get made whole again?
So many people to sue in this case:
the airline (for obvious reasons)
The pilot (also for obvious reasons)
The aircraft manufacturer (for not goose-proofing the engines)
the airport (for having the temerity to be located on a goose flightpath)
Canada (for allowing its geese to interfere with American air traffic)
Me (no doubt for some obscure reason)
“Canada (for allowing its geese to interfere with American air traffic)”
This raises the question. If I choke on ham, may I sue Canada or need it be labeled as Canadian bacon in order to establish liability?
I am a plaintiff’s lawyer and I know a little bit about aviation. I certainly hope none of those folks on Flight 1549 sue. They are alive due to the outstanding skill and judgment of the captain. And hitting birds is the definition of an accident anyway—where is the negligence?
Who knows what the investigation will reveal? There could be negligence. What if there was prior information about birds flying in formation along the same flight path for Flight 1549? What if the bird strike is determined to have been within the engine’s capacity but poor maintenance or design defects resulted in weakened engines? If there was prior information about birds flying in formation along the same flight path, then the litigants should make room for Captain Sullenberger. Such a professional and competent pilot will be very unhappy and will feel betrayed. When people feel like that, they go to lawyers.