Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mgh

BA Flight 762 follow up

Recommended Posts

Remember the incident to BA762 where the engine cowl doors became detached reported here?

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/409765-engineers-and-flightcrew-slipped-up/?hl=%2Bcowl#entry2684543

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/409090-heathrow-incident/?hl=%2Bcowl#entry2683490

Today's Times reports that some passengers are sueing Airbus, and the engine manufacturer (IAE) for the psychological trauma they suffered.

Although the incident occured in the UK on a London to Oslo flight, the case is being brought in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, USA.


Gerry Howard

Share this post


Link to post

5€, or your local equivalent, saying that these passengers are American or have roots in America...

Any takers?


Name available upon request


AVSIMSig.jpg


 

Share this post


Link to post

5€, or your local equivalent, saying that these passengers are American or have roots in America...

Any takers?

Yeah I'll take that..seems like a safe bet lol

 

How can this be tried in Illinois? On the basis something to do with the engine comes from Illinois? Does anything anyway?


 

 

Share this post


Link to post

KriVa, on 13 Jul 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

5€, or your local equivalent, saying that these passengers are American or have roots in America...

Any takers?

I'd bet 100 USD or your local equivalent that they are Americans. Heck, I'd go 1000 USD. Welcome to the wonderful legal system in the States that allow cases like these to exist. And, to the terrible excuse for human beings that we have here that will take advantage in any way they can. It's pathetic. It should be legal for Airbus to counter sue these people for 4x the amount and win every time due to these people obviously trying to exploit the system. They are a complete disgrace to society.

Regards,

 

Kevin LaMal

"Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" - Shapiro2024

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah I'll take that..seems like a safe bet lol

 

How can this be tried in Illinois? On the basis something to do with the engine comes from Illinois? Does anything anyway?

 

I dunno, either they have a clever lawyer who has found some loophole, or they have found a dumb or unscrupulous lawyer and the case just hasn't reached the point yet where the judge throws it out because the court doesn't have jurisdiction. Just because a bunch of people have announced they are suing doesn't mean the court will hear the case.


John-Alan Pascoe

Share this post


Link to post

In the end, it's all about article 33 of the Montreal Convention:

1. An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the States Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination.

 

2. In respect of damage resulting from the death or injury of a passenger, an action may be brought before one of the courts mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, or in the territory of a State Party in which at the time of the accident the passenger has his or her principal and permanent residence and to or from which the carrier operates services for the carriage of passengers by air, either on its own aircraft or on another carrier's aircraft pursuant to a commercial agreement, and in which that carrier conducts its business of carriage of passengers by air from premises leased or owned by the carrier itself or by another carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.

 

3. For the purposes of paragraph 2,

 

(a) "commercial agreement" means an agreement, other than an agency agreement, made between carriers and relating to the provision of their joint services for carriage of passengers by air;

 

(b ) "principal and permanent residence" means the one fixed and permanent abode of the passenger at the time of the accident. The nationality of the passenger shall not be the determining factor in this regard.

 

4. Questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the court seized of the case.

An interesting article about the jurisdiction in those cases can be found here: http://www.kreindler.com/Publications/New-York-Law-Journal-April-28-2011Using-the-Forum-Non-Coneniens.pdf .


Marc ter Heide

Share this post


Link to post
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    18%
    $4,530.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...