Here come the Lawyers-Air France YYZ

[skyhigh]

Just saw on Global that a family who had 3 kids on the Air France flight is now suing for $325 million.....yup you read that right. Apparently the lawyers claim that the kids are scared for life and that they don't want to fly anymore or get into a car.

Personally I am sick and tired with the "Sue Everything that moves" mentality that we North Americans tend to have. The blood thirsty lawyers don't help the matters much either by selling pipe dreams to these families.

If Air France loses this case, they should hire a private investigator to make sure that those kids DO NOT get into a car, bus, plane for a very long time.

[golden hawk]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... alogin=yes


From the Toronto Star

Air France passenger files $75M lawsuit
Class action will grow, lawyer says

Airports authority, Nav Canada named


SCOTT ROBERTS
STAFF REPORTER

A $75 million class action lawsuit was filed in a Brampton court yesterday, accusing Air France, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and Nav Canada of negligence in the landing accident of an Airbus A340 commercial jet three days ago.

The lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court, names Suzanne Deak of Toronto as the lone plaintiff, but the list of claimants is expected to grow.

The suit was filed on behalf of all 297 passengers on board the plane that skidded off Pearson airport's runway 24L before bursting into flames on Tuesday. All passengers, as well as the 12 crew members on board, survived the crash; 43 people suffered minor injuries.

"We've got a bunch of people who have been hurt in some way and we know the passengers didn't cause the accident," said Paul Miller, the lawyer for the plaintiff. "Someone else is at fault. ... Chances are that all three defendants played a role in this accident."

Deak was returning to Toronto from a trip to Hungary when Air France flight 358 overshot the runway and skidded into Etobicoke Creek, 200 metres west of the landing strip. She escaped the plane with minor back and neck injuries, but her lawyer said she is struggling to cope with other effects of the crash.

"I know for sure she has psychological damage," said Miller. "She is on medication for some psychological problems and she'll be seeing her chiropractor and her doctor in the next few days because of her back and neck injuries."

It's too early to tell how many passengers will sign on to the suit, Miller said.

It likely won't be the only one to come out of the accident. Several Toronto lawyers have been in contact with passengers who plan to take legal action.

Lawyer David Diamond has already spoken to at least 10 victims of the crash, including a family of five from Toronto. He expects to file a class action suit against the airline and the GTAA in the coming weeks.

"I'm still waiting to see the results from the black box recordings," said Diamond. "We want to know what the communication was like between the air traffic controllers and the pilot."

Miller is hosting a town hall meeting next Wednesday to explain legal options to anyone involved in the crash.

Sources said Air France has already begun offering compensation to some passengers, which doesn't surprise airline expert Joseph D'Cruz.

"That's normal procedure in these cases," said D'Cruz, a professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. "It's insurance for the airline. If they succeed in getting people to take that compensation, it prevents them from suing later on."

Under the Warsaw Conventions of 1929, airline liability was limited to $75,000 per passenger for accidents on international flights unless it can be proven that airlines acted with "wilful misconduct." In that case, the cap is nullified.

Aviation law expert Glenn Grenier said that although wilful misconduct may be difficult to prove, the airline is liable for any injuries incurred by passengers.

"The airline is strictly liable from the point a passenger embarks on the plane to the point they disembark," he said. "If they have been injured, they should expect to receive compensation."

Officials at Air France and Nav Canada, which provides air traffic control and weather forecasting services at the airport, could not be reached for comment last night.

A GTAA spokesman would not comment specifically on the lawsuit but defended the airport's service.

"Our interest has been ensuring the safety of people and continuing the operation of the airport," said Steve Shaw. "We were very satisfied with our response."

Meanwhile, the Transportation Safety Board continued its investigation into what caused the crash.

The flight data and cockpit voice recorders have been downloaded by French officials and will be flown back to Toronto today.

Lead investigator Real Levasseur told a news conference yesterday that most of the data has been recovered, allowing his team to remove wreckage from the site earlier than anticipated.

Levasseur said it now appears the plane landed further down the runway than it should have, though he would not say by how much.

Information from the black boxes should be able to pinpoint where the plane first touched down, its landing speed, engine RPM and any brake trouble. It should also include audio conversations between the pilots and air traffic controllers.

Officials have ruled out a possible failure of one or more of the plane's thrust reversers, which help slow the aircraft down upon landing.

Interviews with all members of the cabin crew were completed yesterday. Information gained through the conversations is not being disclosed.

Investigators are looking into the possibility that the plane began hydroplaning as a result of excess water on the runway. They are also investigating the role of sudden changes in wind direction.

[cyyz]

I'm glad everyone died at normandy so you could have bitches like these sue for every red dime...

suing for $325 million.....yup you read that right. Apparently the lawyers claim that the kids are scared for life and that they don't want to fly anymore or get into a car.

It'll be interesting to see how the family manages to get their kids back to France... =)

[cyyz]

PS.

I'm suing Religious groups.. Their God made it RAIN.

Their God has spread a heat wave and pollution over TO and their God has spread aids and famine over Africa.

Sign up for "suing the church and god"

The Fundie terrorists won't have any money left to blow sh8t up either after they have to sell their Korans, and same goes for the IRA...

[cyyz]

PSS.

Can I sue the pax, for surviving?? I was actually traumatized that they survived.. I spent all that time watching the news hoping they'd all die..

Lets sue them for living!

[N2]

Lawyers are just blood sucking scum bags...but don't tell my neice I said that ok!

[JBI]

...

[Wasn't Me]

Unless ther Lawers find a wsy of sueing outside Canada, they are not going to get much. Our system is better at controlling these BS action than the American system. I'll bet in the next few weeks they are going to go after the manufacturers of the tires, shuts, engines, aircraft and Cracker Jack for giving them such small brains. There are real losses here that the insurance companies will have to settle but over 300 million for living after such a disaster- give me a break go out and buy a few lottery ticket instead.

My father always said if you are in anaccident and run over someone, do it twice to make sure they are dead, survivors cost to much.

[55+]

The lawyers for the plaintiff have to prove negligence, that’s why the name virtually everybody as defendants; airline, manufacture of ac, the engine manufacturer, pilots etc. In this case the lawyers are also naming Nav Canada as well as GTA. Also the TSB can’t be subpoenaed to appear in any lawsuit to defend their actions or to explain their findings. Remember the TSB assigns cause/probable cause, not blame and I don’t think the TSB final report can be used by plaintiff lawyers to assign blame either. Most, if not all are settled out of court(monetary payout).Also, suits involving crashes take a long time to settle. Air France knows it has to pay and so it should because it’s passengers are entitled to a reasonable defense in that injuries occurred while being transported.

[desksgo]

Someone (Airbus, Air France Maintenance...etc) is very lucky no one died standing in front of one of those exits that didn't work. That would be a one sided law suit and a mighty settlement.

[55+]

Someone (Airbus, Air France Maintenance...etc) is very lucky no one died standing in front of one of those exits that didn't work. That would be a one sided law suit and a mighty settlement.

You could very well be right but it would take a long time through the courts, the Pan Am/Air India bombings aren't settled yet

[w squared]

An interesting aside...

Each one of the people that is leaping to attack with a lawsuit is also part of the crowd that gripe, moan, complain, and whine (and expect some compensation) if their arrival was delayed because of weather. D*mned if you do...

[costermonger]

You could very well be right but it would take a long time through the courts, the Pan Am/Air India bombings aren't settled yet

Bombing != equipment malfunction. If somebody had broken their neck getting out of that plane because the slides didn't inflate, you can bet it'd be a quick, and ultimately expensive, case.

[rotorhead350]

I friggin hate lawyers. The scum sucking pieces of s***. They should go out and get real jobs. Where the f*** do they get these ridiculous figures from, $325 million or even $75 million. Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned you are taking a risk every day whether you get in a car or a plane. You accept the risks, so deal with the fact that sometimes shit happens.

[desksgo]

Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned you are taking a risk every day whether you get in a car or a plane. You accept the risks, so deal with the fact that sometimes shit happens.

And let's just say you lost 2 family members on Valujet 592? Just the price of doing business, right? As long as everyone learned their lesson and said they were sorry? There's a fine line to be drawn between frivolous law suits and holding organizations accountable for their actions. I agree 325 million is an interesting number...but I don't think shit just happens. Commercial transportation doesn't fall under the category of "accepted risk".

We spend billions on aviation safety programs, training, maintenance, and even go as far as analyzing aircraft data after every flight to make sure that perfectly good airplanes don't get run off runways and explode. These people may not be entitled to millions of dollars, but don't forget they didn't book a flight to some ditch at YYZ.

[costermonger]

You accept the risks, so deal with the fact that sometimes shit happens.

But you don't accept negligence and therefore, we can't just burn all the lawyers. As much as you (and many, many others) hate them, they do serve a purpose, but I think we'd all agree that it doesn't involve turning an unfortunate accident (for all we know so far, that's exactly what this is) into a cash-cow for people who managed to survive, unharmed, and now want to be "re-imbursed" to the tune of a couple times the amount of money Air France actually paid for the aircraft.

[rotorhead350]

Lawyers don't serve any purpose in society. They sue for no reason at all, they get murderers and rapists and other criminals off. You tell me what kind of purpose they serve. About all i'd use one for is an anchor for my boat. Friggin losers............................

[cyyz]

You accept the risks, so deal with the fact that sometimes shit happens.

But you don't accept negligence and therefore, we can't just burn all the lawyers. As much as you (and many, many others) hate them, they do serve a purpose, but I think we'd all agree that it doesn't involve turning an unfortunate accident (for all we know so far, that's exactly what this is) into a cash-cow for people who managed to survive, unharmed, and now want to be "re-imbursed" to the tune of a couple times the amount of money Air France actually paid for the aircraft.

Negligence, Hello the pilot was negligent in flying in "bad WX" he should have only flown in Day VFR, where it's 100% safe, oh wait no 3 days later and ATR crashed....

These idiots need to sign a waiver or get the fark off...

[costermonger]

Negligence, Hello the pilot was negligent in flying in "bad WX" he should have only flown in Day VFR, where it's 100% safe, oh wait no 3 days later and ATR crashed....

Therein lies the problem. The lawyers don't really know (or don't care) what is negligent and what isn't.

[costermonger]

Lawyers don't serve any purpose in society. They sue for no reason at all, they get murderers and rapists and other criminals off. You tell me what kind of purpose they serve. About all i'd use one for is an anchor for my boat. Friggin losers............................

:sigh:

You'd rather have a legal system that assumes if you end up on trial for something, you're guilty? Have you forgotten that every criminal who is in jail was put there because of the efforts of the prosecutor, who, and I'm not shitting you here, is also a lawyer? If you've got the blinders on so tight to only see the negative aspects of what lawyers do than I'm affraid I can't help you.

Hell, even in the most frivilous lawsuit there's another lawyer on the other side of the room pleading common sense.

[scubasteve]

Saw another program on the telly today about family members and survivors of other crashes suing and looking for compensation...even just an apology. One guy came on to say that the airlines compare the possible potential payout to settle with the cost of retrofitting their a/c to new safety standards and its cheaper to settle with the families. It got me thinking about the media again which has been discussed on here. I'm not sure when they decided to air this program but it wouldnt surprise me if the decision was made after the Air France incident. Its unfortunate that the media makes its own spin and has gotten away from unbiased stories that allowed you to draw your own conclusions.

[Juggs]

Have you forgotten that every criminal who is in jail was put there because of the efforts of the prosecutor

No, actually not everyone in jail is there as a result of the prosecutor. While the prosecutor did have a roll in the person ending up in jail, it is largely the result of law enforcement officers. The lawyer did not witness/respond to an offence or violation of the Criminal Code of Canada. This would largely be the job of a law enforcement official.

Generally, people who are arrested are granted bail, at the discretion of the crown (who was usually at some point a lawyer.) However, this is not always the case, if the judge determines that the accused is at risk to offend or an endangerment to society or someone who is highly probable to disappear between the current date and the date of their trial.

Now, as far as lawyers go, being a pain in the arse or being an essential part of the community is open to debate. Generally lawyers are frowned upon as being un-necessary and a general pain in the ass. Granted, there are some out there like that. Now, get violated by TC, who is the first person you are going to call, probably a lawyer.

Lawyer fees are fairly prohibative, but in some circumstances their services are very necessary. While I don't agree with someone suing an airline for a fire and aircraft evacuation, (I will not go as far as calling this a crash; the airplane did impact the runway in a controlled manner and there was not wonton destruction of the aircraft in the pre-fire stage from what I have read and pictures I have seen) people generally need to have a source for their imperfections and anxieties. The airline and the pilots who are responsible for the aircraft are the nearest outlets for the "suffering" that they have been through.

Do I personally believe that the pilot's are at fault in this accident? At this stage, not particularly. They made a decision based on a number of factors that were available exclusively to them, based on their experience and circumstance in a limited time frame. In terms of analyzing their actions and decision making process will errors be found? In all likelihood yes. However, if we were to pick apart every single decision that we have ever made we can always find fault in the process and decision. The fact of the matter is that they did not have an indefinite length of time to make a decision. Their decision making time frame was limited by their fuel on-board.
They made the best decision that they could, based on their experience and circumstance at the time. This was all that they could do, and it is all that is ever asked of us as pilots.

Right or wrong, the decision that is made, is the decision that is made.

The below text comes from http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread ... ge=1&pp=40 posted by a someone I have a tremendous deal of respect for by the name of AvBug.

It's sad, it's unfortunate, and that's about all that should be said on the matter until real information is forthcoming.

As far as the airplane, and those that condemn it, a poor carpenter blames his tools. It's not the airplane. The airplane is what it is, and it's a known quantity. Those who elect to fly this airplane do so willingly, and knowingly, and trust in their ability to do so enough that they are willing to bet their life on the fact, just as we all do, every hour, every day.

A bet need not be a gamble; a prudent man bets only on a sure thing. Those who are not sure, then, gamble, and for this, there is loss. For the loss, we can only offer condolence, but in no wise should one condemn the airplane, for it's not the airplane. It's the pilot.

Always the pilot.

Any one who doesn't believe that in his heart has no place calling himself a pilot or taking the responsibility as pilot in command. Responsibility always rests with the pilot, and it's the pilot who pays for this responsibility, often with his certificate, often with his wallet, and forever with his life.

Today is no different.

There was no loss of life in the Air France escapade at CYYZ. Did the crew gamble on something that was not a sure thing, possibly. Was it a responsible decision based on their experience and knowledge? I'm not sure, only they can answer this question.

To the passengers: Be consoled by the fact that you are still alive. There are many people who have passed along of far less traumatic situations.

To the crew: Your diligence in training and response probably saved the lives of an untold number of passengers.

To the pilots: How you dealt with the situation is a reflection on your character. Any one can put an airplane off the runway, dealing with it is a true measure of your principles and who are.

To the lawyers: You're only doing your job. Honor is knowing that you have gone against your morals and values. If you can look yourself in the mirror every morning and be happy with who you are; all the power to you. There is one case that is not tried in any courtroom, you are going to need to be a very good lawyer to be victorious.

Bye bye.

--Juggs

[grimey]

P.S. - did anybody see the Daily Show's segment on the 'miracle' of the crash? It was hilarious.

Satanic competence!

It's on Comedy Central's website, if anyone wants to look.

[JBI]

...

[gelbisch]

Yes, "I hate all lawyers" is a pretty generalized, simplistic and ignorant statement. I just bought a house -- and decided to paint it from top to bottom... BIG MISTAKE!! about to embark on Day 6 here -- and I needed a lawyer to close. I was happy with his help and didn't feel swindled... and I sure wouldn't trust that I could do it myself seeing as how I'm a babe in the woods with regard to just about any law and wouldn't know how to cover myself.

While some are heartless opportunists -- as you will find anywhere in life in any field, incidentally -- lawyers most certainly do serve a purpose.