Sharks are coming out already

[wnbubbleboy]

Lawyer: 'Southwest Murdered Their Child'

CHICAGO -- The family of the boy killed in a Southwest Airlines accident that killed a 6-year-old boy last week is planning a lawsuit against the airline.

Joshua Woods of Leroy, Ind., was inside a car the plane crushed when it skidded off a runway, through a fence and into the street.

"As far as our clients are concerned, as far as the Woods family is concerned, Southwest murdered their child -- and those are their exact words," attorney Ronald Stearney, Jr. said.

 

[I'mRayFlyMe]

Looks like some of the folks in the vehicles who narrowly escaped are looking to collect as well:

SWA Crash Survivor: 'In My Mind, We Were Dead'
Family Considering Lawsuit After Accident


http://www.nbc5.com/news/5557078/detail.ht...994&dppid=65193

 

[wnbubbleboy]

[quote name='I'mRayFlyMe' post='332922' date='Dec 17 2005, 07:54 AM']Looks like some of the folks in the vehicles who narrowly escaped are looking to collect as well:

SWA Crash Survivor: 'In My Mind, We Were Dead'
Family Considering Lawsuit After Accident


http://www.nbc5.com/news/5557078/detail.ht...994&dppid=65193[/quote]

Ahh.......... Mental Anguish.......Aren't we all just waiting for that lottery ticket.

In my mind I thought, "Now we can get the new deck and wirlpool."

In my mind I thought, "AHH, now I can get the H2 and a jet ski."

But never this:

In my mind I thought. "How can I help."

Isn't this the New American Way?

 

[Fly]

Without meeting the family, I would feel it is safe to assume that they would give anything to have their little boy back instead of the $$$. Wouldn't you agree?

If your child were killed because of someone elses mistake, would you just let it go or would you sue?

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Without meeting the family, I would feel it is safe to assume that they would give anything to have their little boy back instead of the $$$. Wouldn't you agree?

If your child were killed because of someone elses mistake, would you just let it go or would you sue?

First off, your assumption is indefensible, of course this family wishes to have their child back rather than cash. So how can you defend such an aligation any differently.
I have kids so I can very easily place myself in their shoes. There is no amount of money that can replace my child. With this being said, I am not going to second guess this family. Every family deals with greif in their own way.

This posting has nothing to do with the family though.


IMHO This has to do with attorneys who would use that greif for their own monitary gain and the Letigus(sp) few who suffered no real harm trying get theirs just by being near the sight.

Also, in the litigation world there IS a value placed on a child's life. It's that starting point that the dance between attorneys start. You see the dance already in the press with the family's attorney.

 

[swflyer]

Uh, Fly, the link above was for a family who was "almost" hit by the plane. The article later reports that the airplane crushed their car, as well. <_<

My understanding of the accident is that only two cars were impacted, one vacant, parked on the side of the road, and the one of the Indiana family. I also understand there was an occupied car that impacted the plane, after it came to rest in the road.

If the family in the article, NOT the Indiana family, was the latter car, IMHO they have no leg to stand on. Technically, they failed to control their speed and impacted the "vehicle" in front of them.

Scary, yes. Bad dreams, sure. Lawsuit?? Only in America.

Wouldn't wish any of this on anyone.

Without meeting the family, I would feel it is safe to assume that they would give anything to have their little boy back instead of the $$$. Wouldn't you agree?

If your child were killed because of someone elses mistake, would you just let it go or would you sue?

 

[scuba]

Ah, yes but how many lawsuits are pending against UA and AA for 9/11? Those people chose to not take the government handout and instead chose to sue the airlines, the Port Authority, Argenbright Security, and I think the Boston Airport. Never mind that the terrorists will kill you with or with-out weapons. That is what they are trained to do.

You see, in America everyone is entitled to sue and those with deep pockets usually have to spend more money to defend themselves regardless of intent, actions, liability or even responsibility. You have a right to earn a living and like it or not, so do attorneys. It will just raise the cost that WN has to pay to run an airline as they will probably have to spend a few years in court fighting the lawsuits because companies don’t want to admit responsibility or accept liability just as individuals don’t after they have an accident on a snowy road! If you, as an individual, admit responsibility or accept liability in an accident chances are strong your insurance agency will cancel your coverage. What would happen to WN if they admitted responsibility or accepted liability? Chances are strong, more than a few lawsuits would be filed. WN just has to fight each and every lawsuit based upon the merits of each individual case.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Southwest Passengers, Represented by Law Firm Baum Hedlund, File Lawsuits against Southwest, Boeing, and the City of Chicago for the Midway Airport Crash in Chicago

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 20, 2005--Two passengers, represented by national aviation law firm Baum Hedlund, filed lawsuits today in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against Southwest Airlines, Boeing, and the City of Chicago, for negligence, conscious disregard for safety, and strict liability for causing the December 8, 2005, Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 to run off Runway 31C and crash-land during a snowstorm. The Boeing 737-700 plowed through a fence and onto a busy street, striking several vehicles. The plane landed on top of a car, killing a young boy and injuring his family members. Passengers suffered among other things fear, pre-impact terror, distress, and physical harm. During the following hours they were confined in buses and the terminal.


Mariko L.A. Bennett and Stanley L. Penn were traveling together to celebrate Stanley's birthday. Mariko suffered internal injuries and Stanley's back was injured. They were kept on the plane with the other passengers for a very long time and felt trapped. When the paramedics arrived, they told them that they were directed to the wrong place, which contributed to the delay. They were forced to evacuate the airplane using the emergency slides, and thereafter were confined in a Shuttle Bus for nearly three hours.

Bennett and Penn have hired a national aviation law firm, Baum Hedlund, to represent them in this case. Two Baum Hedlund aviation attorneys handling this case represented the largest number of passengers injured in the 2000 Southwest runway crash of its Flight 1455. Baum Hedlund has associated a Chicago-based aviation law firm, Rapoport Law Offices, to prosecute these cases with them.

Ronald L.M. Goldman was a lead attorney handling the discovery deposition efforts and Clark Aristei acted as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the Coordinated Discovery Cases in the Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 runway crash-landing in Burbank, California, on March 5, 2000. That plane came in "hot and high" and careened off the end of the runway, through barriers, crossed the street, hit a car, and came to rest mere feet from gasoline pumps at a service station. The Midway crash in Chicago is frighteningly similar to the Burbank crash.



Here's the facts sheet for the above the above lawsuit:

See attached Fact Sheet

FACT SHEET

Allegations Summary:
Against Southwest Airlines: Negligence and Conscious Disregard for Safety
Against Boeing: Strict Liability
Against The City of Chicago: Negligence

Against Southwest Airlines:
• As a common carrier Southwest had a duty to its passengers to use the highest degree of care to protect their safety. On December 8, 2005, in violation of this duty Southwest negligently, carelessly and improperly: began an unsafe approach given the prevailing weather, visibility and runway conditions; failed to abandon the approach before it was too late; touched down too far from the threshold of runway 31C; lost control of the aircraft; and failed to stop the aircraft on the runway.
• At the time of the accident, the negligent pilots were unable to stop the aircraft because of its excessive speed upon landing, given a short, slippery runway, the point of touchdown. The company policy against use of the autobrake system, lack of proper instruction and training in its use, contributed to the crash.
• Attempting to make up for lost time, the Southwest pilots intentionally, willfully, recklessly and wantonly flew the airplane in a dangerous manner, including, but not limited to, flying the landing approach at dangerous speeds well in excess of safe speeds for the conditions of short runway length, slippery runway conditions, tailwind, wind speed, visibility, and snow, among other things, during the approach to land and landing on runway 31C at Midway Airport.
• Failing to abort the landing at Midway Airport and execute a “go-around†or request diversion to an alternate runway or airport despite notice and knowledge that the landing was unsafe and was likely to result in a crash landing posed a serious risk to, and endangered the lives of, their crew, passengers, and others on the ground.
• Southwest pressured the pilots by scheduling only a 20-minute “turn around†in Midway before flight 1248 was scheduled to depart for Las Vegas. On December 8, 2005, Flight 1248 was already two hours late to Las Vegas.
• Failing to stop the aircraft within the perimeter of Midway Airport, such that it crashed through two fences at the perimeter of the airport and emerged into traffic on South Central Avenue and West 55th Street, public streets in Chicago.

Against Boeing:
• Boeing’s autobrake system and the reverse thrust system aboard the jet airplane were each defective in design and manufacture, and failed to safely or properly operate in the manner intended by defendants, and failed to safely or properly operate as reasonably expected by users, including the Southwest Flight 1248 pilots. Boeing represented and advertised that these systems would safely and properly operate as intended by Southwest and other operators.

Against The City of Chicago:
• The City of Chicago negligently, carelessly and improperly failed to: monitor the conditions of runway 31C; maintain runway 31C in a reasonably safe condition for air carrier operations; and failed to close runway 31C in order to clear snow, ice, etc.

As a result of the acts and conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs, and each of them, have been injured in their health, strength and activity, and have been caused physical and mental pain and suffering, including, but not limited to, physical injury, pre-impact fear of injury and emotional distress by each plaintiff.

 

[SilentWarrior]

Against Boeing:
• Boeing’s autobrake system and the reverse thrust system aboard the jet airplane were each defective in design and manufacture, and failed to safely or properly operate in the manner intended by defendants, and failed to safely or properly operate as reasonably expected by users, including the Southwest Flight 1248 pilots. Boeing represented and advertised that these systems would safely and properly operate as intended by Southwest and other operators.

I wonder if this little event in Germany had any bearing on adding Boeing to this? Not a good year for the 737.

Turkish Airliner skids off runway.

 

[luver41]

I wonder if this little event in Germany had any bearing on adding Boeing to this? Not a good year for the 737.

Turkish Airliner skids off runway.

Seeing how announced today the sale of the 6,000th 737, the airlines don't seem to have a problem with the plane. Best selling commercial jet airplane of all time by a wide margin.

The attorneys are just throwing as much mud as possible and hoping that some of it sticks.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Seeing how announced today the sale of the 6,000th 737, the airlines don't seem to have a problem with the plane. Best selling commercial jet airplane of all time by a wide margin.

The attorneys are just throwing as much mud as possible and hoping that some of it sticks.

Chinese deal takes 737 orders over 6,000
Ken Vandruff
As the Boeing Co. prepares to assemble its 5,000th 737 airliner, company officials can already see a new milestone of 6,000 of the jets.

Boeing (NYSE: BA) passed the milestone with an order Wednesday for 10 737-800s from Xiamen Airlines of China.

Deliveries will start in mid-2006. The deal is worth up to $720 million at list prices depending on configuration, although airlines routinely negotiate discounts.

The order brings the 737s total orders to 6,025 since the jet was introduced in 1968.

Spirit AeroSystems Inc. in Wichita builds 75 percent of the 737 airframe. Spirit recently rolled out the 5,000th 737 fuselage for shipment to Boeing's final assembly plant in Puget Sound. That jet will eventually be delivered to Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV).

 

[SilentWarrior]

Seeing how announced today the sale of the 6,000th 737, the airlines don't seem to have a problem with the plane. Best selling commercial jet airplane of all time by a wide margin.

The attorneys are just throwing as much mud as possible and hoping that some of it sticks.

Hrmmmm....

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was not stating that the 737 was a bad aircraft. I added the supplied link due to the similar circumstances for both accident/incidents, and thought maybe this could have spurred adding Boeing to the lawsuit. That being said, I realize that the timing of the German incident was too late to be a factor in this lawsuit. I agree with your assessment so far. Throw enough mud and anything will stick. I believe that any lawsuit should wait until the NTSB has had it's final say. “Shotgunâ€￾ lawsuits such as this do nothing for the people lodging or the companies implicated.

Not a good year for the 737.

Let me rephrase this as well. Not a good year for the 737 in the media.

I apologize for any confusion my statements may have caused.

 

[Busdrvr]

Hey, I was "shook up" watching the news.....

Any chance I can "get paid" to?

 

[nycbusdriver]

If the family in the article, NOT the Indiana family, was the latter car, IMHO they have no leg to stand on. Technically, they failed to control their speed and impacted the "vehicle" in front of them.

That's undoubtedly one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on USAviation.com.

That a driver needs to be able to stop safely if another vehicle comes crashing through a fence and into a lane of moving traffic is absurd.

 

[FWAAA]

That's undoubtedly one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on USAviation.com.

That a driver needs to be able to stop safely if another vehicle comes crashing through a fence and into a lane of moving traffic is absurd.

No kidding. An airplane crashing thru the fence and sliding uncontrolled into the intersection is not much different from someone who loses control and veers into the oncoming lanes and causes head-on collision(s). In a case like that, the driver who isn't where they are supposed to be is going to be at fault for the resulting collision. Even if the driver is operating a 737.