Back to Squawk list
  • 18

Asiana crash victims sue Boeing

A group of passengers who were aboard an Asiana Airlines flight that crash-landed last summer has sued aircraft manufacturer Boeing, according to a lawsuit filed in an Illinois court. "We are asking for damages to be paid to the passengers and asking the court to hold Boeing partially liable," Monica Kelly, an attorney for Chicago-based Ribbeck Law Chartered, told CNN on Saturday. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

canuck44 21
This filing begs for loser pay legislation...and if the plaintiff cannot pay then the ambulance chasing lawyers should be on the hook to make the defendant whole. Shakespeare was absolutely correct.
Couldn't agree more, John.
Personal injury lawyers trying to tap the largest available pockets of money, in the hopes of getting a payday.
Sad part is that they just might get some. John has it right.
The laws you conceive when you have Boeing on the brain oir even Airbus) will be the same laws you'll have to live with when the plane is made by the Canadians, by the Brasilians, by the Japanese and by the Chinese.

Any law you create today may be the law the governs your suit when you're crippled by a plane made in China.
If the airplane crashed as a direct result of a defect in manufacturing process they should pay. This plane and it's systems we're certified by the US government. It was crashed by Asiana pilots who apparently didn't know how to land the thing. If they hadn't crashed it nobody would be injured. I'm guessing these lawyers are gonna say the systems were confusing to the pilots. I'm sure they were confused. Common sense has departed, especially at the judicial level ( judges). And anybody that would board a Chinese airliner Also has no common sense. Lol
The plane operated as designed, trained and expected in this case.

Te lawyers are going after Boeing, only because they have bank accounts flush with cash, at the moment. And the culpable party (pilot and by extension the airline) is protected by convention.
Sure it's nothing but a money grab. Has nothing really to do with Boeing. Actually Boeing should be protected by the same convention as Asiana. We always give up some of our rights when dealing with foreign entities but they always gain rights when dealing with us. We got smart people making the rules.
There's no way the plane was confusing. I find a 777 is easier to fly than the 737-800.
I am going to disagree. What you propose is that a plaintiff pay up front for litigation that he or she may feel is appropriate in civil court.

Who are you, or any legislator to say what is right and wrong according to the law?

Who are you to say who can, and cannot file a complaint against a party based upon the ability to pay?

Do you become judge and jury, prior to any evidence presented, that this or any suit is frivolous or lacks merit? What gives you that expertise?

I will not argue that there are lawsuits that are frivolous, or many that lack merit. But thankfully, that is why we have judges, who are trained to know the difference, and give exacting reasons, based on law, as to why.

The laws in our country are established so as not to disenfranchise those who have no ability to pay up front.

In this particular case, the Firm involved is quite able to cover the costs, and has the expertise to both represent their clients, and a very good background.

Shakespeare was a great writer, however, I rather doubt he ever tried a case in a court of law.
He didn't say pay up front. He said you and your attorneys have skin in the game.
Hey jackass, that's the way it's already done everywhere else in the world.
So our laws should reflect what everyone else does? Is that the spirit of our Constitution? Also, I must beg you pardon, but do not address me in that kind of language.

And as far as skin the game, I am willing to bet thousands of dollars in billable hours already in background and research. If a lawyer even thinks about a particular case, it's billed by the time spent.
Gobsmacked. First Asian pilots trash a perfectly good aeroplane, then Asian passengers turn around and sue the manufacturer. The only faulty system in the 777 was four incompetent pilots.
What sense does it make for the victims to sew Boeing? Many other airlines fly the 777 and you NEVER hear that the airlines' pilots crash land the plane. The 777 is a well designed plane, and its automated systems are there to assist, not replace, the pilots. So I understand. It's Boeing's fault that the Asiana pilots didn't handle their aircraft properly, right?
That's right. Boeing doesn't need to be stitched up.
They should be darn grateful they were in a Boeing.
What kind of nonsense is it to go after the plane manufacturer? Oh wait, that's right, look for the deepest pockets. - Money-hungry lawyers make me sick.
Why isn't this being laughed out of court?
Lawyers have "had their way" with aviation for far too long. It is time to revisit the liability laws and fix blame where it belongs. The concept of joint and several liability is what allows lawyers to sue everyone tangentially connected to an accident, and then collect from the deepest pockets, not the greatest fault.

What cries most for equitable correction is the limit of liability for air carriers that was established in the 1920's and has not been adjusted for inflation. What amounted to a King's fortune almost a century ago is now spare change.

Currently there is no limit of liability for air framers and that should be addressed to disallow billion dollar windfalls for aggressive law firms. That should be capped at $250,000.

Percentage contingent fees for lawyers should be capped at 10% so victims stand a chance to get more than the mouthpiece. Loser pays Court cost can effectively stop spiking the costs of litigation as well. How many times have we seen litigation follow a path of making money for the law firm with little or no advantage for either client?

I personally have been talking to California legislators about limiting liability for spacecraft manufacturers. Their eyes glaze over when you ask a lawyer to possibly limit the income for another lawyer, but you must push them to do the right thing.

Boeing and EADS should be working to increase the liability of airlines and having their own limited as well.

This current suit against Boeing is unfair to everyone.
tom duff 4
Doesn't make sense. It was a pilot error. What do these people expect? The plane to be in good working condition AFTER its tail getting banged into the ground. That doesn't make sense. This is not Boeings fault it could be the pilots fault. This is what I believe. People are so sue happy now days.
Ditto to all. Look for deep pockets and a culture that says settle rather than fight the blood suckers.
Boeing planes don't just fall out of the sky
Yes, ask the AG manufactures how well the product liability laws work. Damn near shot GA out of the sky...
This was about as predictable as gravity. Something crashes, somebody sues.
" The lawsuit alleges that some equipment on the plane was improperly installed or defective..."
I did think that 'incompetent pilot' was a Boeing-installed item. They did not know how to operate the equipment on the aircraft, and failed to perform basic air pilotage tasks. And this is the fault of Boeing how?

Famed San Francisco Attorney Melvin Belli was one accused that his attorneys were a bunch of ambulance chasers. His retort was that if his attorneys could not beat the ambulance to the scene, he'd fire them! That is what IMHO is operating here.
Boeing ought to counter sue Ribbeck Law Chartered for barefaced greed...
Try plugging "vexatious litigant" into the search engine of your choice.
I agree. We need to set a precedent here where the greedy wind up paying dearly. It would do our country good to have several of these ambulance chasing attorney firms go down in flames. They are the scurge of modern society.
mobilken 0
The manufactures need to send a message, fix the law or well stop building!
Just pay the politicians enough and it will be done. They are mostly lawyers you know.


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..