Blaming the Airlines, not the Terrorists

Dan I think that even if this is a grab for cash that it could prise loose some badly needed facts on the seemingly gross culpable negligence and/or certifiable incompetence involved,not only in the screening processes,(or lack thereof)but the demonstrable break in the command and control of the USA government leading up to this catastrophe.
I don’t think it is for a fistful of dollars,more like lighting a candle in a very dark pit,but I’ll be watching this case with interest.

Sorry Dan, I have to disagree. This is no way mitigates the the horrible atrocity commited that day but the FAA for years has been sending ‘Red Teams’ in to infiltrate airline security and airliners with overwhelming success. Security was a cost to be controlled as closely as possible, not a certifying requirement to continued operation. Millions were spent in DC lobbists to keep security requirements to a minimum and even those modest targets were consistently missed. It doesn’t happen in Israel because the the Israelis refuse to let their people become hostages or victims or their planes to become missiles. Israelies do not compromise on this.

It’s really sad because this is the kind of thing which stunts our economy– we cannot have unlimited liability for this type of stuff, because as much as people like to bash big business, only big business is capable of absorbing the reasonable risks and liabilities and capital costs involved in airline travel (100,000 small mom-and-pop airlines shuttling people around the country in puddle-jumpers is not desireable).

Hijacking attempts are foreseeable, but what the hijackers did was hardly imagineable– if it had been, mere boxcutters would not have done the job, the passengers could have overpowered a few hijackers, the pilots would never have given up without a fight. Believe me, it will never happen again– the days of innocence and a recognition of “honor among thieves” is gone. They’re going to have to get a much more substantial weapon aboard to hijack a plane now, something they still would not have been able to get aboard with the ‘old’ procedures. So was it negligence? I don’t think so.

Who needs enemies when the U.S. is more than capable of driving our own economy into the ground.

The blame lies not exclusively with lawyers and judges (although that’s where the load-bearing walls are), but also with our currrent societal outlook. Our dominant societal view is now that virtually all misfortune has its roots in some entity that can be sued. The Taliban don’t have enough assets? Well, then bring down the next contestant. If you are tired of this sort of thing (and obviously many people are actually envigorated by it) then read The Death of Common Sense by Philip K. Howard. Or read any of his books. I’d put the link, but it looks like I’m not allowed to put HTML here.

I guess I’m happier with the airlines catching Hell for their persistent negligence than I was with taxpayers footing the bill. ON the other hand, perhaps we should draft all the attorneys and give them real weapons to fight our enemies instead of eviscerating people in lawsuits for RIAA, Microsoft and other gentle entities.

Are the government and airlines guilty of lax security standards? Absolutely…as the Israelis have shown, relatively minor additional inconvenience and some additional cost can do a much better job. Unfortunately, as with so many other aspects of life today, this quarter’s bottom line trumps common sense and future benefits.

Is the government to blame for not anticipating this kind of action…of course. Is it to blame for the specific act of violence…no. Hindsight gives us a remarkably clear picture of the gems of information buried under a mountain of mud, and it’s always easy to judge what the NSA, CIA and other security organizations might have been able to do if they had known which data was important in a timely fashion.

Unfortunately, with an insecure, macho moron in the White House and a culture of secrecy-obsessed, CYA yesmen supporting them, we’ll probably never learn what happened unless Oliver North makes another movie…

How exactly should airlines be forced to take the public safety seriously? For years they rejected basic security measures that would have prevented this kind of problem.

I am all for this kind of lawsuit.

–Kynn

I went looking at snopes, but found what I was looking for at slate, today’s slate carries an article about what we don’t know or have wrong about 9/11: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088092/

Anyway, we don’t actually know that the planes were hijacked with box cutters alone. Witnesses reported bombs, chemical sprays, and shooting.

Also, we do know that contrary to Ms. Rice, there were many warnings of precisely this kind of attack

There’s definitely a flaw in our system that it takes bizarre, incredibly enriching law (oh good, Windows tells me another security hole is ready to be patched) suits to finally give the economic rewards and punishments to get to the bottom of things or to motivate the right behavior.

Because I may be a meany, somehow I would prefer to see corporate officers and government officials going to jail rather than the lawsuit lottery.

I’m with Dan on this one.

Unfortunately, as the comments here show,
many folks aren’t. The urge to kick a
corporation, rightly or wrongly, is

endemic.

Guess what ? That’s why the lawyers
are so powerful, the judges so a-logical.

Stan

I’m with Dan on this one… The blame lies with the religious fanatics who selected legally permissable items for use as weapons in a surprise terrorist attack that the collective ‘intelligence’ capabilities of the free world were unable to predict.

If anyone on this side of the pond should be cast under a spotlight of potential historical culpability, the executive and legislative branches should be nearer the front of the line than United.

Leave it to greedy asshats to blame the WTC for being in the way of an airplane… (rolling eyes)

2 points:

1. Civil lawsuits are never a good way to get a problem fixed, because they focus on monetary value of damage, and largely work only by apportioning blame to a party when often the interactions are more complex. (Example: toddler choking on candy – is responsibility the parent’s or the manufacturer’s or retailer’s?)

Having said that…

2. Airlines have a reasonably unique ‘common carrier’ status in that the airline has considerable authority over the passengers, similar to parent:child responsibility. They therefore must have corresponding responsibility, along the lines of ‘duty of reasonable care’. So if an airline has been warned about specific REASONABLY AVOIDABLE risks and then takes no REASONABLE action, then it must be culpable.

I will agree with Dan. I beleive the “real” blame lies with our government and the bureaucracy that has evolved in our Intelligence Agencies. Sometimes in speaking of “Intellegence Agencies” I begin to feel that is an oxymoron.

The only ones that will see “funds” from this type of lawsuit are the lawyers and the courts. I cannot see that in the long run this will do anything but raise the hopes of someone that there will be a large settlement when in reality this type of negligence is not the responsiblity of the airlines but that of the government. This is really a sad situation.

As someone has said, the next round of lawsuits will be against those that built the buildings so tall. They should have known they would be targets of this kind of crime against humanity.

Negligence, as I have been told, is the result of someone who “knows” that what they are doing will result in a “bad” outcome. I cannot believe that the airlines “knew” that 9/11 would happen – not in their wildest dreams.

Walter,

Negligence is NOT doing something that is known to prevent a bad outcome.

There were a lot of highjackings in the 70’s, so I think ‘not in their wildest dreams’ is a difficult defense.

Sorry Dan,

But the US can’t have it both ways. If the US wants to classify the WTC attack was an act of war, then the terrorists are enemy combatants, and due fair treatment under Geneva convention as POWs (which they obviously are not getting). Specifically, most of them will not be liable for prosecution, inside or outside the US.

So, considering this, you might want to reconsider the WTC attacks as a terrorist act, not an act of war. In this case, the insurers and, to a lesser extent, the airlines can be sued for recompense. That, after all, is the way the American justice system works. I’d say that if you don’t like this (the lawsuits), the American justice system needs work.

Specifically, the US needs serious tort reform, and needs to get away from it’s heavy reliance on the jury system, which results in lawsuits which have no business of even being brought to court, being won.

Don’t you agree?

If the world hasn’t gone mad, i’m sure USA has…

Huh? (see below) “legally permissable”?
A 4 yr old boy with a Bic disposable shaver could of taken over one of our airplanes for the past 50 years.

Admit it, the USA is (was) a complacent place primarily because of it geography (it wasn’t bombed like Europe in WW II, or under extreme threats like Israel to actually change protocol.

Watch the movie “Catch Me if you Can” and you can see how a con job, while easy to pull off in the ’70s, was still pretty easy to pull off in the recent years too.

How about the Ford Pinto? Let’s talk about profits and proper safety measures.

As far as the airlines going bankrupt… well, while competition breeds better service, like it or not, the airlines are the USA’s public transit system, and it’s understandable they are always rescued by the US Govt. They might as well be the Post Office.

sourboy

>>>>

Wow this is all crazy!! Today I saw this headline:

Deutsche Bank AG(DBKGn) is seeking to hold New York State liable for more than $500 million due to property damage done to its building following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

They are suing the NY tax payer to recover the cost of water damage and stolen computers and lost business which were the effects of Sept 11. Well I guess social services, fire, police, teachers, and all the other programs will have to take a huge cut if this German bank prevails. Has everyone gone mad in NYC in the sue happy capital?? Wow, there will be enormous transfers of wealth from the average hard working New Yorker to the pockets of big lawyers and the rich after this.

The little guy get screwed again.

Jay point that this was not an “act of war” is worth repeating,
and worth expanding.

The simple truth is that there is no “war on terrorism”: we’re
no more “at war with” al Qaida, or terrorists in general, than
we were “at war with” Jesse James, Pancho Villa, Al Capone, or
Timothy McVeigh. Osama & Company are just another gang of
thugs, who happen to have motives and methods that are
somewhat different from the thugs we’re more familiar with.

If you doubt that the “war on terrorism” is a sham, simply
examine the way the Bushies “wage” it and use it: when it’s
inconvenient for them to stay within the bounds of U.S. law and
our Constitution, we’re suddenly “at war”, with an urgent
need for executive powers that give fascists wet dreams. When
it’s inconvenient to be bound by the laws of war, we
magically transform into some sort of “megacop”, who’s
rounding up crooks who aren’t “real” combatants.

But, while I disagree strongly with Dan’s characterization of
the acts, he’s right about the liability: the airlines
should be no m
ore “accountable” for the acts of the thugs
who stole their planes than the Ryder people should be for
the tragedies resulting from the bombing of the Murrah Building.

Ran Talbott,

Amen to those words. The attack, because it wasn’t a government action, but a group made up of civilians located around the world, it is a major crime to be dealt with by the FBI not the military. But Bush has decided to use both heavy handedly.

Also I was thinking, under the logic of that judge if my car was stolen (which is what the terrorists did with the planes) from my driveway and then packed with explosives and used to blow up a school (something al Qaida would probably like to do) it would be my fault as well and I would be financially responsible for the disaster. Crazy!