MilesBuzz! - Widow Sues UA over Sept 11th

Since this lawsuit could result in impacts to frequent flyers via either shutdown airline(s), increased costs or more boarding hassles, I am posting it here. This particular news article was taken from the Charlotte Observer.


Widow of Sept. 11 passenger sues United Airlines, alleging negligence led to hijacking
DERRY, N.H. (AP) - A woman whose husband died aboard one of the jetliners that slammed into the World Trade Center sued the airline Thursday, alleging company negligence led to the Sept. 11 hijacking.

Ellen Mariani of Derry filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the southern district of New York. Her husband, Louis Mariani, 58, was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, the second plane to hit the center.

The couple were taking separate flights to California to attend the wedding of Ellen Mariani's daughter.

Initially, Louis Mariani had planned to stay home, thinking it was too expensive for both of them to go. But his wife raised money through yard sales to buy him a surprise ticket so he could see his stepdaughter walk down the aisle.

Mariani's lawyer, Don Nolan, said in a statement that the airline had a duty to "exercise the highest degree of care" for safety and should have stopped the hijackers from boarding the plane. The statement did not elaborate on what Nolan thinks the airline should have done differently.

Nolan said Mariani has decided not to apply for money from the federal Victims Compensation Fund, which is open only to those families who agree not to sue anyone for damages.

"Mrs. Mariani doesn't want the taxpayers' money," he said. "She wants her day in court with United Airlines."

Officials at United Airlines could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday. The phone line was busy at the airline's corporate offices in Chicago.

Comment: What exactly did she expect the airline to do? The security in place then, and still today would not have prevented this event from taking place. Do not blame the airlines for this terrible event.

OMG, I just saw this on yahoo news!! I bet she just isn't satisfied with her Red Cross handout. She's really suing the wrong person, if you ask me. Bin Laden is a more likely target.

Please also see:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/009670.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum109/HTML/002933-9.html

This is ridiculous. United was in full compliance with all government regulations concerning airline security.

In previous hijackings, the hijackers landed the plane somewhere, made demands, and so on. UAL and AMR operated based upon that so I don't even think you can say they were negligent in their behavior after the planes were hijacked.

I sure hope this lawsuit gets tossed out of court like it should.

I find it real tough making a comment on something as touchy and important as this subject as I would feel different if that was my family on board. I can see how people are against suing UA and AA and I can see why people are. I think that this is one of those things that unless you go thru it, its hard to see what they are seeing. I'm glad I didn't know anyone on those flights and I feel bad for everyone involved in those flights, family, friends etc...

It is outrageous--rediculous--non-sensical that anyone would sue UA or AA over this terrible tragedy. Everything I've seen indicates that these families will get a more than fare amount of money from the Red Cross, the gov't, etc. However, no amount of money can bring back their loved ones.

It seems to me that if anyone ought to be sued it is the federal government or Bin Ladin.

I keep hearing people blame the airlines, the security firms, et al., and that we need the federal gov't to take over security of airports and flights. However, the security firms and airlines did their jobs, box cutters were perfectly legal to bring onto aircraft PER THE REGULATIONS OF THE FEDS.

It seems if anyone is "responsible" outside of the terrorists, I think it would be the federal government. Wasn't the government the one who had the "let terrorists do anything they want and sit by quietly" regulations/procedures for hijacking? The feds told the airline staff to let anyone who wants to takeover an aircraft do it, so the feds should have the responsibility.

d

I have two points to make on this.

The first is that there is trouble with our litigious system. It's the judicial lottery, find an attorney and file a lawsuit, and becasue of the high costs of litigation, you can get some sort of settlement to reward you. The attorney does the work on a contingency basis.

Result: lots of stupid law suits. Clogged courtrooms. Idiotic things companys have to do in order to avoid getting sued.

Solution: There should be a rule that if you sue someone, and if you lose, then you pay their attorney's fees and the court costs. That would discourage these stupid law suits.

My second point is this (and I don't know the widow so I am only speculating):

Even if someone like that widow understands that it isn't UA's fault, people around her start eating away at her telling her she should sue.

She reads the paper and sees stories in the news where people sue on similar flimsy grounds and win a lot of money in the judicial lottery.

She says to herself, "my case has a lot more merit than that case, and those people had the nerve to sue and they got a lot of money. Maybe I'm being stupid. Maybe I should sue UA. Everyone else is, why shouldn't I?"

So the widow gets one of the willing lawyers and joins in the judicial lottery.

Our small airplane industry stopped making planes until congress passed a limit on their liability. The judicial lottery is killing innovation and hurting business in the USA and it needs to be stopped through legislation along the lines I mention above.

I think it's a challenge to judge the actions of a widow of the September 11 terrorist murders.

She may have been given solid legal advice to do this because she is not getting the monies promised to her by the American Red Cross and the United Way. There are countless threads here about how these giant charities are holding back (and earning interest on) the payments of the funds made available by generous people all over the world. The widow's state of mind may be completely out of focus because she has bills to pay and she's alone. If anything, I bet there are trial lawyers who are salivating at the chance to sue these airlines. Blame them before blaming the widows.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TrojanHorse:
I find it real tough making a comment on something as touchy and important as this subject as I would feel different if that was my family on board. I can see how people are against suing UA and AA and I can see why people are. I think that this is one of those things that unless you go thru it, its hard to see what they are seeing. I'm glad I didn't know anyone on those flights and I feel bad for everyone involved in those flights, family, friends etc... </font>

So that's the difference between being subjective and objective.
American jury system is subjective... so not very fair. If McDonald can lose over a cup of hot coffee, so can UA.

I bet she will get at least 2 million dollars for this one then another group will follow with class action suit... you will see.

God bless America.

May we reap what we sow.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MoreMiles:
So that's the difference between being subjective and objective.
American jury system is subjective... so not very fair. If McDonald can lose over a cup of hot coffee, so can UA.
</font>

The McDonalds lawsuit award was reduced from $2.8 million to $640,000. Though that didn't make headlines.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
Solution: There should be a rule that if you sue someone, and if you lose, then you pay their attorney's fees and the court costs. That would discourage these stupid law suits.
</font>

Unfortunately, it would also discourage many sensible law suits, especially against large organisations with big, expensive teams of lawyers.

I believe the solution should be that judges should throw out frivolous actions and be able to penalise those who bring them.

And one other note on the McDonalds suit - one that at first I thought was completely nuts - the coffe maker was found to be above recommended temps. In fact the store was sighted three times (maybe twice - but more than once) the temps were too high and could injure an employee. The store neglected to fix it. That's why the lady won.
Once again there is a lot more to the story than makes the press.
And I am not pro- sue at the drop of a hat either.
I figured it was a matter of time till someone sued.
It's sad.

------------------
TANSTAAFL - but if you work it right, FF miles comes pretty close.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MoreMiles:
So that's the difference between being subjective and objective.
American jury system is subjective... so not very fair. If McDonald can lose over a cup of hot coffee, so can UA.</font>

See the attached for the seldom reported facts about the urban-legend McLawsuit.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Barzino

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CFM3RD:

I figured it was a matter of time till someone sued.
It's sad.

</font>

As a law student that is completely disgusted with the legal system, we all knew it was coming. It's sad to say - but this is how it works. The airlines get sued constantly. I actually drafted a complaint against a major carrier last summer. UA knew that this would happen. Will the woman get her husband back? No. But we put dollar values on everything.
The emotional feeling post Sept. 11 will dissolve slowly, and the courts will be flooded with even more paper . . .

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MoreMiles:
American jury system is subjective... so not very fair. If McDonald can lose over a cup of hot coffee, so can UA.</font>

I doubt that this case will get anywhere. All UAL has to do is keep on pounding into the jury's mind the fact, which is indisputable, that they were in compliance with all federal regulations and policies concerning airline security.

Look, if on September 10, you walked into FBI headquarters and said, tomorrow, four planes will be hijacked and crashed into buildings, they'd have sent you to a mental hospital. It was inconceivable that someone would do that.

So I just cannot see how someone would find for the plaintiff in this case.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
I doubt that this case will get anywhere. All UAL has to do is keep on pounding into the jury's mind the fact, which is indisputable, that they were in compliance with all federal regulations and policies concerning airline security.

So I just cannot see how someone would find for the plaintiff in this case.</font>

I would put money on John Rocker and Carl Everett deciding to share a house in Arlington before this makes it to a courtroom.

The victims' families don't need to sue. Between the hundreds of thousands they'll receive from charities and the minimum $500,000 of our tax money the government has decided to give away, they're all going to be millionaires.

If she wins, I hope she'll give back that $500,000 of government money she's going to get. I don't think anyone is entitled to that payoff; perhaps we (taxpayers) could help with some federal money if people needed it, but since they're going to get more than enough money from life insurance and charity, the victim's families don't need my tax money.

Back to the original topic - did the government pass any legislation lowering the liability for the airlines? I remember that was a sticking point in the passage of the aviation security bill.

d

Ugh, just when you thought you were thoroughly disgusted with humanity, they manage to sink yet another notch into filth. I think I'm going to be sick. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

I think UA has little to worry about, because this would bankrupt both UA and AA if allowed to go forward.

In the days after the crashes, airline lobbyists were busy in Washington in pursuit of 2 things. Obviously, one of the them was the relief fund. More importantly, limited liability.

In some scenarios, the airlines would be on the hook for "ground damages" as well. That means all the survivors plus tenants of the WTC can sue UA/AA for their losses as well. The government would never allow it.

Therefore the aim of this lawsuit is the judicial lottery. They are looking for a settlement before the government moves to officially close the door on liability.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
If she wins, I hope she'll give back that $500,000 of government money she's going to get.
d</font>

I believe victims can only receive these funds if they forfeit their rights to sue any parties for damages. Apparently, she's taking a chance on a bigger payout.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SRQ Guy:
Ugh, just when you thought you were thoroughly disgusted with humanity, they manage to sink yet another notch into filth. I think I'm going to be sick. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif</font>


People filing lawsuits like this make me really question the decency of people. I understand how tragic it is to loose someone in circumstances you have no contol over, but filing lawsuits won't do much to bring that person back.

The first image in my head after reading this was that of this person being strip searched at customs, and then filing a lawsuit for invasion of privacy.

..whatever it takes to fill those pockets....

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by swag:
The McDonalds lawsuit award was reduced from $2.8 million to $640,000. Though that didn't make headlines.</font>

Still $639,999 too much!!!



------------------
When all Frequent Flyer programs become equal, they will cease to exist! Be careful what you ask for!

Weren.t there RUMORS (and I do want to emphasize the unsubstantiated claims here) that weapons were smuggled on board before the flights boarded, and actually taped under the bottom of specific seats? If this was true, and if there is evidence for this, that maybe the airline is indeed "on the hook." But I do want to say that this lawsuit is very unsettling.

This is a poorly coached women by another greedy lawyer. If she had to raise $200 via a yard sale then she probably is somewhat less educated and vulnerable. Second why wouldn't she just take the easy $500,000 instead of subject herself to years of litigation and have to see the plane crashes re-displayed.

While I can't speculate on why this particular case was filed (and I'm not pro-litigation by any stretch of the imagination, having left law school after the first day of classes), here's something to consider:

Not all families are going to be walking away with a large sum from the compensation fund.

Remember, the final payout is minus any IRAs, 401Ks, pensions, life insurance, etc. If the family had planned carefully, they'll get nothing. Not a cent. While the family of a passenger who didn't consider the future, will.

Also, compare the offering to the multi-million dollar payouts families have been awarded after other air tragedies.

[This message has been edited by joanek (edited 12-22-2001).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by joanek:
Also, compare the offering to the multi-million dollar payouts families have been awarded after other air tragedies.</font>

Those are a little different than this one. Here, you've got someone trying to sue an airline for not taking steps to prevent the unimaginable. I could have walked into the FBI's headquarters on September 10, told them that four planes were going to be hijacked and crashed into various buildings, and they would have sent me to the local mental hospital. After all is said and done, it wouldn't surprise me if we find that we intercepted communications about this plot but the agent in charge thought it was inconceivable that this would happen so he didn't act on it. And who could blame him?

Those situations were due to flaws in the aircraft, pilot error, or something like that which is something that you can prevent. This isn't the same thing. How can you prevent the unthinkable?