Or maybe just used the press release in an effort to get something out quickly.

(Written on 26/02/2021)(Permalink)

To point 3, paying for damage on the ground. My perspective as someone who teaches law in this area is that the traditional rule is that airlines are strictly liable—no need to prove negligence—for damage on the ground from aircraft. Some states have changed that; in Washington State the landowner must prove negligence. I am too lazy to look up Colorado. My advice to the airline, which is probably what they'll do, is pay out generously for damages. As jptq63 observes, the damage on the ground is relatively slight. There's no point for the airline in paying for protracted litigation on a losing case that generates bad publicity.

(Written on 26/02/2021)(Permalink)

All the people on the plans are dead, so they're not scoring. Few, if any, of the family members will recover an amount that approximates their loss. Where the damages are large, the survivors are under pressure to settle to replace the lost earnings immediately. Boeing, the airlines, and their insurers will present a united front and wait. From news reports, it seems that some family members have given up their rights for relatively small amounts. In a case like this, they may not even recover their provable economic losses. Depending on what law applies, there may be recoveries for psychological injuries to survivors, but juries are skeptical about this.

(Written on 15/07/2019)(Permalink)

Nah, it's just that they're hoping to attract headlines. That's somewhat likely with a case like this but not with others.

(Written on 14/07/2019)(Permalink)

If by "customers" Rick Hunt meant "passengers"--that's what I was asusming--there's still a problem with showing damages. If "customers" means the airlines--not what this complaint alleges--they might well have a RICO complaint against Boeing. For a variety of reasons, I don't think it likely that such a complaint would be filed.

(Written on 13/07/2019)(Permalink)

That's a pretty typical drafting style for a high-profile case like this. Collusion complaints are easy to make, but since the Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Iqbal, the plaintiffs will have to have evidence that goes beyond multiple defendants acting separately in their common interest. Unless the plaintiffs come up with this, the case will be dismissed before the defendants even have to answer.

(Written on 13/07/2019)(Permalink)

My take, based on the facts as they have generally been reported, is that Boeing is going to lose all these suits, admission or no, so an admission would have no effect on Boeing's liability. A statement like that might violate Boeing's duty to cooperate with its insurers. Because the insurers will have a large share of the exposure on this and the exposure is huge--half a billion is a low estimate, IMO--Boeing has a reason to make sure it doesn't do that. An advantage of admitting a mistake might reduce the likelihood that a court awards punitive damages.

(Written on 19/05/2019)(Permalink)

Eh, not so clear. I'm sure there are contractual provisions governing this, and between highly sophisticated companies like Boeing and the airlines, the courts will likely let them control. But, if it weren't covered by those, the plane would likely fail to meet the implied warranty of merchantibility under the UCC. If that affected the value of the plane, that would be a direct loss and would be compensable. The losses from an inability to attract people to the palne because of a defect would be a consequential damage, which is recoverable in the absence of an effective contractual waiver of that right.

(Written on 19/05/2019)(Permalink)

flight 538 is what the article says, but I think it was Flight 583. And, you're right, at least according to wikipedia, as to that flight's being the genesis for Airframe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Eastern_Airlines_Flight_583

(Written on 28/12/2018)(Permalink)