The families of 9/11 victims who refused the Feinberg fund results and demanded more through lawsuits piously reported repeatedly that it wasn’t about the money, that they just wanted to publicize the truth in their lawsuits against fellow victims such as the airlines and airports and multiple other deep pockets. Now that several cases have settled—and the plaintiffs have agreed to confidentiality clauses—Shaun Mullen and Ed Morrissey suggest that it was about the money after all.
Posts Tagged ‘airlines’
“Most of the negative attention was from being an attorney”
TB-flying Atlanta lawyer Andrew Speaker tells his side of the story. (Meredith Hobbs, “Bad Image Lingers for Atlanta Lawyer With TB”, Fulton County Daily Report, Sept. 13).
“Everybody, that is, except the guys who did it.”
Mark Steyn throws down the gauntlet:
Last week the New York Times carried a story about the current state of the 9/11 lawsuits. Relatives of 42 of the dead are suing various parties for compensation, on the grounds that what happened that Tuesday morning should have been anticipated. The law firm Motley Rice, diversifying from its traditional lucrative class-action hunting grounds of tobacco, asbestos and lead paint, is promising to put on the witness stand everybody who “allowed the events of 9/11 to happen.” And they mean everybody – American Airlines, United, Boeing, the airport authorities, the security firms – everybody, that is, except the guys who did it.
According to the Times, many of the bereaved are angry and determined that their loved one’s death should have meaning. Yet the meaning they’re after surely strikes our enemies not just as extremely odd but as one more reason why they’ll win. You launch an act of war, and the victims respond with a lawsuit against their own countrymen.
But that’s the American way: Almost every news story boils down to somebody standing in front of a microphone and announcing that he’s retained counsel. Last week, it was Larry Craig. Next week, it’ll be the survivors of Ahmadinejad’s nuclear test in Westchester County. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out, a legalistic culture invariably misses the forest for the trees. Sen. Craig should know that what matters is not whether an artful lawyer can get him off on a technicality but whether the public thinks he trawls for anonymous sex in public bathrooms. Likewise, those 9/11 families should know that, if you want your child’s death that morning to have meaning, what matters is not whether you hound Boeing into admitting liability but whether you insist that the movement that murdered your daughter is hunted down and the sustaining ideological virus that led thousands of others to dance up and down in the streets cheering her death is expunged from the earth.
(Mark Steyn, “No terrorism, just war?”, Orange County Register, Sept. 9; Anemona Hartocollis, “Little-Noticed 9/11 Lawsuits Will Go to Trial”, New York Times, Sept. 4; also to the point).
Imams drop “John Doe” defendant
While they’ve agreed to let the fellow passenger off, they continue to sue US Airways and the Minneapolis airport commission. (Michelle Malkin, Aug. 22; Audrey Hudson, “Imams drop passenger from lawsuit”, Washington Times, Aug. 22; Joseph Goldstein, “Imams Drop Fellow Passenger From Discrimination Lawsuit”, New York Sun, Aug. 23; earlier).
Update: “Quebec passengers sue TB-infected U.S. lawyer”
“The American personal-injury lawyer who caused a health scare after flying despite being infected with a potent form of tuberculosis is facing a lawsuit by three of his fellow passengers.” Montreal lawyer Anlac Nguyen is demanding $C100,000 apiece on behalf of two Czech sisters who say they sat next to Andrew Speaker, and $C60,000 on behalf of a Laval, Que. man who sat farther away. Speaker recently learned that while he’s carrying a serious, drug-resistant and contagious form of tuberculosis, it isn’t the extremely-drug-resistant form originally suspected. (Jonathan Montpetit, Canadian Press/Toronto Star, Jul. 5). Earlier: Jun. 2.
P.S.: For those who are wondering, no, there’s not the slightest indication from the story that any of the three plaintiffs caught anything from Speaker. Update Dec. 2: tests confirm that no one flying with him caught TB.
“Hello. My name is John Doe. Sue me.”
The Jersey Jihad arrests, following a report to authorities by an alert Circuit City employee, have reignited talk of protecting airline passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior. Michelle Malkin has the slogan on a button (May 9; see also Audrey Hudson, “Republicans lobby Pelosi to protect ‘John Does'”, Washington Times, May 2; NRO “The Corner”). Earlier: Mar. 15, Mar. 22, Mar. 29, Apr. 19. Update: Jul. 20 (Hill conferees strip John Doe protection from bill).
“Despicably focused” on punctuality
That’s Southwest Airlines, according to plaintiff’s lawyers suing it over a 2005 accident at Chicago’s Midway Airport. (Joseph R. McFaul, Sharks in the Water, Jan. 14).
“Eenie Meenie” redux
Remember the “Eenie Meenie Minie Mo” case? (Feb. 2003, Jan. 2004, Aug. 2005.) Here’s a variation which is almost as ridiculous, if less entertaining, from the Virgin Islands. Bad customer service as a cause of action:
During a layover in Puerto Rico, the passenger approached American’s ticket counter to verify her connecting flight to the Virgin Islands. The ticket agent supposedly refused to return the passenger’s ticket and told her “to shut up and take a seat” and that she might not be scheduled to travel on any flight that day.
The passenger sued American, alleging claims under Virgin Island territorial law for negligence, breach of an implied contractual duty to ensure that employees “conduct themselves in a professional manner” and discrimination. The passenger’s claims seemed to focus solely on her alleged emotional distress from being treated rudely; the opinion does not indicate that the agent’s conduct caused the passenger to miss her flight or suffer any other more tangible injury.
Fortunately (unlike in the Eenie Meenie case) the court did not let this case get to trial; he granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant Airlines. As a result, American Airlines probably “only” spent in the low five digits to “win” this case.
Incidentally, I’ve heard the pace of life is slower in the Caribbean, but this flight took place in July 1996. The suit was filed two years later — it looks like just before the statute of limitations expired — in July 1998. Inexplicably, American Airlines did not move for summary judgment until eight years later, in July 2006; it’s not clear what was going on in the interim.
(But judging from one of the plaintiff’s previous trips (PDF) through the legal system, it would not be beyond the realm of possibility that she might bear some responsibility for the long delay.)
Furor over imams’ John Doe suit
“House Republicans are pushing legislation to protect airline passengers from lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that might be linked to a terrorist attack. Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007 on Thursday, a week after a lawsuit was filed by a group of Muslim imams who were taken off a US Airways flight in November.” (Dec. 6, Mar. 15, Mar. 22; Audrey Hudson, “Hill bill protects flying public”, Washington Times, Mar. 24). Syndicated columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin has been on top of developments (“The John Doe Manifesto”, National Review Online, Mar. 28; blog posts, Mar. 24, Mar. 27, Mar. 28).
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has a response from the imams:
The imams’ Manhattan attorney, Omar Mohammedi, said the suit “is directed at the airlines and the airport, not passengers.”If someone has a legitimate security concern, we’re not going after that person,” he said. “Or if someone saw them praying and reported that out of ignorant fear, we aren’t going to target that.
“But if someone lied and made a false report with the intention to discriminate, such as in saying the imams made anti-American comments and talked about Iraq when in fact nothing like that ever happened, we have the right to challenge that,” Mohammedi said.
(Pamela Miller, “Attorney offers aid to defendants in imam suit”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Mar. 22). USA Today has editorially weighed in on the passengers’ side: “This legal tactic seems designed to intimidate passengers willing to do exactly what authorities have requested — say something about suspicious activity.” (“Our view on post-9/11 travel: Clerics’ lawsuit threatens security of all passengers”, Mar. 27; opposing view by Arsalan Iftikhar). See also Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, Mar. 27.
P.S. And now AP is on the case (“Imams removed from flight may sue passengers”, AP/MSNBC, Mar. 30), and Sen. Fred Thompson (“Suing for Silence”, National Review Online, Mar. 29). The imams have now amended their complaint to cast a seemingly less capacious net for John Does: Audrey Hudson, “Imams narrow target of ‘Does'”, Washington Times, Mar. 31.
Flying-imams case: sued passengers may get help
Following up on Mar. 15 and before that Dec. 6: “Lawyers and a Muslim group say they will defend at no cost airline passengers caught up in a lawsuit between a group of imams and U.S. Airways if the passengers are named as ‘John Does’ and sued for reporting suspicious behavior that got the Muslim clerics booted from a November flight. … Gerry Nolting, whose Minnesota law firm Faegre & Benson LLP is offering to represent passengers for free, says the judicial system is being ‘used for intimidation purposes’ and that it is ‘just flat wrong and needs to be strongly, strongly discouraged.'” Also offering help is “Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy — a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site — [who] told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams.” (Audrey Hudson, “Muslims offer to help ‘John Does’ sued by imams”, Washington Times, Mar. 21).