MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
9/11 ruling
- Thread starter MetalMover
- Start date
silverbird007
Senior
So I guess the terrorist's family members will sue next because AA didn't stop them from killing themselves. And this so called "judge" will rule in their favor too! Disgusting!
OP
MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #3
I guess the airlines are going to be expected to put Navy Seals on each flight!
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
Do you understand what the term "settlement" means?
OP
MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #5
Yea, I do.....What's the point of your question? I know what SETTLEMENT means. This is not about the settlement.Glenn Quagmire said:
My comment is in reaction to the lawsuit being made in the first place:
Cantor alleged American should have stopped five Islamic extremists who took over Flight 11 from Logan International Airport in Boston and crashed into the north tower. Cantor’s offices were near the top of the 110-story building.
Really? American should have stopped the five terrorists when the government couldn't? The same goes for United.
Do YOU understand what the term "bull**** lawsuit" means?
Even the developer lost his lawsuit.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323993804578614292502152144
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,940
- 9,371
Anyone can file a lawsuit claiming negligence, regardless of how shameless the lawsuit's allegations may be.
The developer's lawsuit was dismissed over different grounds. He'd already been paid by his insurers, and was trying to double dip:
Before you start pointing fingers at the judge, you might want to note that Cantor Fitzgerald had tried to sue the contractors, but that part of the lawsuit was thrown out by the court.
It had also been ruled from the bench that C-F couldn't seek damages beyond ~$100M for actual damages -- they'd been seeking between $400M and $1B as compensation for lost future profits.
The only reason this part of lawsuit remained was the simple fact that airlines *were* responsible for the security checkpoints, and to ensure that the contractors were doing their job.
Had it gone to a jury, my guess is that AA would have been acquitted. Box cutters weren't illegal, and all the procedures mandated at the time appeared to have been followed. The only possible argument I could think of would have been that the crew was negligent for opening up the cockpit door. And there's nobody alive who knows if they did or didn't.
But it also would have dredged up a pretty dark chapter in the airline industry. I'm not sure it would have been in anyone's interest to go to court, and settling, however distasteful, means that it's done. Over with. Not to be relived again, which is fine with me. I barely watch TV the month before the anniversary.
Bottom line is the $135M is coming from the liability insurers, not AA. I don't lose a lot of sleep over an insurance company having to pay out a claim, given how much they charge...
Being a person of faith, I also believe the people who continued to pursue this lawsuit for the past 10+ years will answer for that eventually, as will the terrorists.
And no, their families can't file. The statute of limitations ran out years ago...
The developer's lawsuit was dismissed over different grounds. He'd already been paid by his insurers, and was trying to double dip:
Cantor? A bunch of dirtbags for pursuing this in my opinion... They'd been sued earlier by Silverstein for refusing to pay the rent for Aug 01 to Sep 10.
Before you start pointing fingers at the judge, you might want to note that Cantor Fitzgerald had tried to sue the contractors, but that part of the lawsuit was thrown out by the court.
It had also been ruled from the bench that C-F couldn't seek damages beyond ~$100M for actual damages -- they'd been seeking between $400M and $1B as compensation for lost future profits.
The only reason this part of lawsuit remained was the simple fact that airlines *were* responsible for the security checkpoints, and to ensure that the contractors were doing their job.
Had it gone to a jury, my guess is that AA would have been acquitted. Box cutters weren't illegal, and all the procedures mandated at the time appeared to have been followed. The only possible argument I could think of would have been that the crew was negligent for opening up the cockpit door. And there's nobody alive who knows if they did or didn't.
But it also would have dredged up a pretty dark chapter in the airline industry. I'm not sure it would have been in anyone's interest to go to court, and settling, however distasteful, means that it's done. Over with. Not to be relived again, which is fine with me. I barely watch TV the month before the anniversary.
Bottom line is the $135M is coming from the liability insurers, not AA. I don't lose a lot of sleep over an insurance company having to pay out a claim, given how much they charge...
Being a person of faith, I also believe the people who continued to pursue this lawsuit for the past 10+ years will answer for that eventually, as will the terrorists.
And no, their families can't file. The statute of limitations ran out years ago...
OP
MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #7
Exactly my point.. They alleged that American should have stopped the terrorists from boarding. The government couldn't stop them. How could American and United?eolesen said:
They should have gotten ZERO.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,404
- 2,649
The world if full of stupid lawsuits.
Pimp sues Nike for $100m because they didn't warn him about dangers of using Air Jordans to stomp on man's face
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/11/pimp-nike-jordan-sue/4431131/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/12/convicted-oregon-pimp-sues-nike-over-lack-shoe-warning-label/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/11/22268548-pimp-sues-nike-for-not-warning-shoes-could-be-dangerous-if-used-to-beat-people?lite
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537889/Pimp-sues-Nike-100m-not-warning-sneakers-weapon-used-Air-Jordans-stomp-mans-face-refusing-pay-prostitute.html
Woman sues solicitors because they "did not explain that finalising her divorce would terminate her marriage"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/divorce-lawsuit_n_4590440.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537566/Woman-sues-solicitors-did-not-explain-finalising-divorce-terminate-marriage.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-claims-lawyers-should-have-told-her-divorce-would-end-her-marriage-9051550.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/woman-tries-to-sue-attorney-because-they-didn%E2%80%99t-inform-her-that-her-divorce-would-cause-her-marriage-to-end-215624871.html
I posted each story four times because honestly, I thought if I posted it once you might think it was a joke.
Pimp sues Nike for $100m because they didn't warn him about dangers of using Air Jordans to stomp on man's face
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/11/pimp-nike-jordan-sue/4431131/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/12/convicted-oregon-pimp-sues-nike-over-lack-shoe-warning-label/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/11/22268548-pimp-sues-nike-for-not-warning-shoes-could-be-dangerous-if-used-to-beat-people?lite
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537889/Pimp-sues-Nike-100m-not-warning-sneakers-weapon-used-Air-Jordans-stomp-mans-face-refusing-pay-prostitute.html
Woman sues solicitors because they "did not explain that finalising her divorce would terminate her marriage"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/divorce-lawsuit_n_4590440.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537566/Woman-sues-solicitors-did-not-explain-finalising-divorce-terminate-marriage.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-claims-lawyers-should-have-told-her-divorce-would-end-her-marriage-9051550.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/woman-tries-to-sue-attorney-because-they-didn%E2%80%99t-inform-her-that-her-divorce-would-cause-her-marriage-to-end-215624871.html
I posted each story four times because honestly, I thought if I posted it once you might think it was a joke.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
eolesen said:
At the time of the attacks, the government-approved procedure was to let hijackers in rather than risk the lives of the passengers. It was an old paradigm, now abandoned, based on the premise that the hijackers themselves wanted to live. Would following that government-approved procedure be considered negligent? (Aside from the fact that they may have physically knocked down the door anyway, as you pointed out. Those old doors and locks were incredibly flimsy anyway.)
