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/Forum.../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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Barzino