Posts Tagged ‘airlines’

Motley Rice and its 9/11 cases

September 11 litigation as an industry, courtesy of the asbestos/tobacco zillionaires from South Carolina:

While other lawyers have resolved most or all of their cases — at least 32 of the roughly 90 total lawsuits have settled — Motley Rice has settled only three. …According to several lawyers and plaintiffs in the case, Motley Rice has made unusually high settlement demands, often 5 to 10 times higher than similar plane crash cases. The higher demands stem from Motley’s calculations for what it calls “terror damages” — compensation for the amount of time frightened victims knew they were fated to die — of between $750,000 and $1 million a minute, according to those lawyers and clients, who requested that their names not be used because the settlement process is confidential.

The story deserves a place in the “Not About The Money” files because client after client informs the Boston Globe that their litigation stance is entirely unrelated to that disdained cash nexus; presumably it’s just happenstance that they have wound up represented by lawyers who are making monetary recovery a very high priority indeed. Somehow one is reminded of the character in Flannery O’Connor: “Mrs. Hopewell had no bad qualities of her own but she was able to use other people’s in such a constructive way that she never felt the lack.” (via Lattman)(cross-posted from Point of Law).

From the comments: a chill on safety discussions

While the comments action has been lively elsewhere on this site, I noticed a comment that Jim Collins made on Ted’s post “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t files: Putnam Hospital” which I thought deserved its own freestanding entry:

The medical profession isn’t the only place where this happens. I used to be an aircraft mechanic for one of the major airlines, several years ago. Twice a month, after finishing our shift, we would go to a breakfast meeting. This meeting was attended by all of the mechanics from all of the airlines at that airport who worked the same shift. Several people from the airport and the FAA also attended. The purpose of this meeting was to share information on maintenance and airport safety issues. The FAA rep always took notes, compiled them from all of the shifts and a couple days later a copy was in your mailbox. I know of several problems and possible accidents that were prevented because of the information shared at these meetings. These meetings were suddenly stopped after company management found out that trial lawyers could obtain the minutes of them, from the FAA, through the Freedom of Information Act and use them against the airline in court.

Airport wouldn’t land his personal jet

From “Decision of the Day: A daily summary of the best (and worst) of federal appellate decisions” (Jul. 3):

Money Can’t Buy Love, Or Permission to Land Your Personal Jet
Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Hailey, 04-34524 [PDF](9th Cir., July 3, 2006)

Poor Ron Tutor. All he wanted to do is land his personal jet at an airport in Hailey, Idaho. The airport wouldn’t let him due to weight restrictions, so he was forced to fly in a less comfortable private jet. As a result, Tutor’s vacation at his Sun Valley home got off to a very bad start. Tutor sued the airport and the City of Hailey on various grounds, including under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his rights to due process, equal protection, and interstate travel. The district court predictably found these claims were frivolous and awarded partial fees to the defendants, totaling $88,000 (in addition to costs of around $70,000). On appeal, the Ninth affirms the decision to award fees but remands to the district court for recalculation. Am I the only one who hopes the district court finds a way to increase the fee award on remand?

“Decision of the Day”, incidentally, was launched by “Robert Loblaw” in October, and can be found here.

P.S.: In email, Prof. Childs advises that site author “Robert Loblaw” quite possibly may have borrowed that screen name from a similarly named lawyer-character on “Arrested Development”, who can be viewed here.

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 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).

Profiled by flight attendant, wins $27.5 million

Left over from last month: “An economics professor from California who was arrested because a flight attendant thought she looked like a terrorist has been awarded $27.5m. In a victory for critics of racial profiling, a jury in El Paso, Texas, ordered Southwest Airlines to pay damages to Samantha Carrington for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution after she was bundled off a flight and arrested because flight attendants found her appearance suspicious.” (Salamagundi, Apr. 14; Best of the Fray; Protein Wisdom; “Finding the wrong answer” (editorial), USA Today, Apr. 14). For more links on air profiling, see our aviation page archive.

UK: Great moments in human rights law

Nine Afghan asylum seekers who hijacked a plane at gunpoint to get to Britain should have been admitted to the country as genuine refugees and allowed to live and work here freely, the High Court ruled yesterday.

In a decision that astonished and dismayed MPs, the Home Office was accused of abusing its powers by failing to give the nine formal permission to enter Britain, in breach of their human rights.

(Philip Johnston, “Hijackers have a right to live in Britain”, Daily Telegraph, May 11; “Give us back our rights” (editorial), May 14).

Bounteous bankruptcies: Northwest, Delta

Carolyn Elefant (Mar. 26) wonders how one law firm managed to rack up a bill of more than $183,000 for legal research in the Northwest bankruptcy. “Complicated bankruptcy cases commonly generate big fees for lawyers — so it might not be surprising that, by the time the two airlines exit Chapter 11, the tab could be $276 million or more.” (Harry R. Weber and Joshua Freed, “Legal Fees Pile Up in Delta, Northwest Bankruptcies”, AP/Law.com, Mar. 28).

Jury: “customer of size” not victim of airline bias

“A jury on Friday said Southwest Airlines did not racially discriminate against an overweight passenger when she was asked to buy a second seat on her flight.” Nadine Thompson of Exeter, N.H., CEO of a successful cosmetics company, claimed the airline applied its “customer of size” policy in a racially discriminatory manner. On Friday Joel Drake, a Southwest employee, testified that Thompson herself had “accused him of being a ‘motherf—— racist pig’ and wished that his family would die from cancer when he tried to explain the company’s policy to her. …Thompson testified that Drake was bullying her and she felt scared, so words were her only way to fight back. She said she felt cornered and powerless.” (Kathy McCormack, “Jury: Southwest didn’t discriminate against passenger”, AP/Boston Globe, Feb. 10; “Told to buy 2 seats, Exeter woman sues Southwest, claims racial discrimination”, AP/Manchester Union-Leader, Feb. 8). Earlier second-seat suits: Dec. 20, 2000, etc. More: Thompson says she won’t appeal (AP, Feb. 15).

Air Canada flight attendants success

In a self-parody of “comparable worth” theory (see also POL Aug. 17), the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Air Canada flight attendants may sue for gender discrimination on the grounds that they’re paid less than the male-dominated pilots union. Couldn’t possibly be because of supply and demand for differently trained and skilled groups, because the flight attendants and pilots work for the same organization in the same business. Air Canada will still be permitted to argue that flight attendants’ passing out of pillows is not “equal work” to the pilots’ flying the plane. The Court criticized litigation tactics that created “enormous expense” over the course of the 15-year litigation—but it was somehow Air Canada that was the target of the criticism, rather than the flight attendants for bringing the risible case. (Richard Blackwell, “Flight attendants win case against Air Canada”, The Globe and Mail, Jan. 26; Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd., 2006 SCC 1) (via Bashman).

Bountiful bankruptcies, cont’d: UAL

Kirkland & Ellis, counsel to bankrupt United Air Lines, has thus far run up a tab of $84,892,637.50 handling the matter. Ten other law firms are also in on the action; for example, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, which represents United’s unsecured creditors, has billed some $38 million in fees. (Eric Herman, “Lawyers fly high on United bankruptcy”, Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 23). Lattman and Ribstein comment (both Jan. 23).