pgiyer

I have no opinion either way on this topic except this:
Why do most Canadians (at least those who post here) get defensive and point fingers at the US when the topic was purely about something that happened in Canada?
"This stupid woman is suing for 1 million....eh? eh? harruuumphhhh! She must be amerikkan"

Sopwith

Let's explore this in the context of the appropriate legal test: What would you expect a reasonable and prudent operator of commercial aircraft to do to prevent objects from falling from overhead bins and thus injuring passengers?

1. Nothing special, relying on the passengers themselves to use a normal standard of care to stow baggage safely, and to protect themselves from the carelessness of others (i.e. status quo);

2. Remove the doors to the bins and install those bungy cord thingies they use on buses to prevent objects from falling out;

3. Same as 2, but leave the doors on (belt and suspenders approach);

4. Install the doors the other way, so they swing down instead of up. Then they would catch anything that falls out of the bin. (But then you have to deal with bumps on the head and poked eyes.)

5. Make the bins wider so when things fall out they fall into the aisle and not on pax seated in the C and D seats;

6. Require that all carry on baggage be taken from pax as they board and stowed by a properly trained FA;

7. Ban carry on baggage from the bins, other than pillows, blankets and newspapers. Require all other baggage to be checked (for a fee of $25 per item, of course);

8. Verbally warn each passenger as they board to watch for falling objects;

9. Print a warning in big, bold, red letters on the BP to alert pax of the effects of gravity and the resulting dangers of falling objects and of not stowing carry on bags securely;

10. Post the same warning on a pop-up screen during OLCI and make pax check a box acknowledging the warning before they can complete the check in process;

11. Announce ad nauseum that larger articles go in the overhead bins, while smaller ones must be stowed beneath the seat in front of you, thus ensuring that if something does fall, it is a big one;

12. Collect all carry on bags at the jetway and drop them down to the ground crew to be stowed in the cargo compartment;

13. Embroider a warning into the top of each seat: "DO NOT SIT HERE IF THE OVERHEAD BIN IS OPEN!"

14. All of the above;

15. Something else I haven't thought of?

obiterdictum

Good job it wasn't this lady with her Ł5million hands

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...lmond-oil.html

mkjr

just my 2 cents but the systemic failure to monitor compliance of carry on baggage for both size and weight limits could result in some very heavy luggage being placed in the overhead bins and if it comes dislodged, could cause some substantial damage.

some of you blaming the victim clearly have never been through a trial like this.

i mean, when was the last time you had your carry on weighed. or when was the last time you saw a passenger struggle with a carry on that was CLEARLY over weight.

will be interesting to see where this goes but in my career...never as black and white as some see it here. but then again, i suspect many here have never been in a place where 50% of the people around you will come up with a very well rationed argument telling you you are dead wrong.

mkjr

it is easy and in fact, they have studied this.

people in Canada look to the US and see claims in the media that are frivolous. that said, they assume all cases are like that and the result, many claims are not made by Canadians because they too don't want to be seen as making frivolous claims. in the medical malpractice area, this ideology has resulted in some people in Canada not making very legitimate claims for malpractice.

so the illustration is actually consistent with the actual studies done between Canada and the US in this exact area.

You want to go where?

And yet, there are very high awards in Canada when warranted. Example:

Marcoccia v. Gill, Purba Furniture Ltd. and Ford Credit Canada Ltd

The jury awarded 16.9 million to the plaintiff in this case, including close to 1.4 million for lost future earnings. The injury was much more serious than the one referenced by the OP.

Wandering through the linked document above, it seems that it is a bit of a myth that Canadian courts are unwilling to give large awards. However, in most cases, the injuries tend to be brain injuries (although in one I noted that the injury was comparatively minor, but hindered the ability of the individual to pursue his chosen career - orthopaedic surgeon).

mkjr

i agree with you. i know of many cases that have high awards but those can be found in publicly available databases.

i would probably want to see the actual evidence filed since at this stage, it is merely a statement of claims versus actual proof of damages....probably take place down the road.

if i lost the ability to use my hands, i could have a substantial lost future earnings claim. my sight, massive. so more facts would be needed and there are many experts in this area that know it far better than i ever would.

i was just pointing out that i can see how there could be some serious damages. getting something dropped on you that is 10kg would hurt but something that is well over the permitted threshold, given what some cabin hogs take on these days, might pack a nice wallop.

You want to go where?

Yes, this is what we should all be saying. Some would like to believe that large jury awards only happen in the US, but they do happen in Canada as well.

However, whether the plaintiff in this case can prevail is dependent on causation, injury sustained, and impact on livelihood and quality of life.Without the facts, it is all just speculation.

mkjr

agree 100%. and have been through this too many times to form any view other than the foregoing.

drvannostren

I'm assuming this is why details are scarce. Likely there'll be an NDA to be signed after a settlement so why ruin your chances.

KenHamer

Eight figure settlements also occur with some frequency in Canada - no jury required.

Absolute

That's my exact opinion of the US - but I say this in an amused way. Every time I'm in the US and watch TV, I'm always shocked by the number of personal injury lawyer ads (why do they always have to be so... well... tacky?), or riding on the metro system it's filled with their ads.

Then there's all the medical ads - I swear, I can always tell in the first 2 seconds if this is going to be a transvaginal mesh class action lawsuit or not.

Granted, I don't have cable in Canada, but I'm always shocked at the sheer number of what I would classify "ambulance chaser" ads in the US.

You want to go where?

In the US, these ads used to be illegal. It may be that they still are in Canada.

mkjr

but what is somewhat unfair, is that i suspect many people never really saw how horrible that poor women was scalded by the coffee at mcdonalds - third-degree burns on, going from memory, 10 percent of her skin...if so, many would hardly consider the claim frivolous...although in this day in age, it is much easier to get more information....

it looked just horrible. i must admit, i was in the frivolous camp until i saw that damage.

so who knows in this case.

drvannostren

It goes for the political ads too...

That said, I'll never forget driving into Manhattan from EWR a big billboard on top of an apartment building. Very well placed I might ad. "WHO CAN I SUE!?" I think it was for like whocanisue.com or something ridiculous like that. I just saw it and thought, REALLY is that what this country has come to?