Airline Lawsuits

If you decide to file a lawsuit following an air accident, there are some important things to consider. Aviation law can be extremely complicated, so it's best to try and locate an attorney with sufficient experience in the area. The international nature of aviation means that a lawsuit can often be complicated by different laws and access to wreckage.

Once committed to your case, an attorney should start by trying to preserve wreckage. Any wreckage is likely to form a large part of your case, so it is essential that your attorney ensures that the local authorities are preserving everything correctly. Your attorney should then begin to check that all cockpit recordings, both voice and data recordings, are being located. Air Traffic Control recordings should be sought out too; these can often prove to be the most vital piece of evidence in an aviation trial. Your attorney should now start to evaluate the liability of the different parties involved with the accident; once a defendant has been located, more can often be added at a later stage if evidence is recovered. Your rights should be protected by your attorney at any interviews you are required to take after the crash. An aviation specialist could be sought out to provide specific advice and to help determine liability.

Most importantly of all, it is essential that you choose an attorney who can prove past successes in the field of aviation law, and one whom you feel comfortable with. A decision to file a lawsuit against an airline following an accident can be the beginning of a very long journey. Most air crash investigations take tens of years to complete, and no case can be brought to court until all the facts have been established. This can mean a very long, and sometimes very expensive, wait.

On August 2nd 2005, at approximately 16:03 EDT, Air France Flight 358 overshot the runway at Toronto's Pearson International Airport. The airplane came to rest in a small ravine almost two hundred meters past the end of the runway, where all two hundred and ninety-seven passengers and twelve crew were successfully evacuated. A severe thunderstorm warning had been in place for approximately four and a half hours before the crash of Flight 308, leading initial reports to state that weather was to blame for the incident. Comparisons were made between this incident and that of Air Canada flight 189, which crashed into the same ravine in 1978 killing two passengers. The investigation into Flight 189 questioned the length of the overshoot area at Toronto Pearson Airport, and the existence of the ravine at the end of it.

Any lawsuits against Airbus seemed effectively ruled out when lead investigator Réal Levasseur told reporters that the aircraft appeared to have been working as it should have.

"Post landing, as the aircraft wheels touch down, we see the brakes applied right away, we see the spoilers come up to slow down the plane, we see reverse thrusters fully deployed."

On 8 August 2005, three days after the crash, Hotz Lawyers of Toronto filed a class action lawsuit against Air France. In a statement from the law firm, they say that, "[The] claim pleads very specific allegations against the co-pilot and pilot, and Air France on its own and is liable in law for the actions of the pilot and co-pilot, and against the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Airbus S.A.S., NAV CANADA, and Goodrich Inc."

Claiming damages of $75,000,000, Hotz Lawyers said that they "[...] pinpoint areas in regard to the runway's pavement and dimensions, pilot error, possible mechanical or other failure, aircraft and runway design flaws, and improvements that ought to have been implemented in regard to radar, air control, and landing systems." (Hotz Lawyers Website)

It seems that in this case, damages could be owed. But how many more cases are there of aviation lawsuits in the wake of a crash?

The world's first and only supersonic passenger jet, Concorde, was something of a dream-come-true for many. But on July 25th 2000, the dream was over, as an Air France Concorde flight crashed shortly after take-off, killing all one hundred and nine people on board and four on the ground.

An investigation began immediately, and it emerged that the crash began with a tire blow out, caused by a strip of metal left on the runway by a Continental Airlines aircraft. Insurance company La Réunion Aérienne, which had primary coverage for losses resulting from the crash, filed a lawsuit against Continental. One year to the day of the crash, families of five of the Concorde's crew members also filed a lawsuit against Continental Airlines and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Both companies denied the allegations.

On 14th December 2004, a judge ruled that Continental Airlines must accept "joint responsibility" for the Concorde Crash, having noted that the piece of metal on the runway played a "direct" role in the incident. On 10th March 2005, a French magistrate formally placed Continental Airlines under investigation.

It seems that only time will tell if the lawsuits against Continental will be successful.

The terror atrocities committed throughout the United States on September 11, 2001 resulted in a huge loss of life. Two airplanes were used to smash into the World Trade Centre, one to hit The Pentagon and one that crashed in Pennsylvania. Could the families of passengers on board these aircraft file lawsuits against the airline?

Shortly after the incidents of 9/11, the United States Congress set up the “Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act” (Public Law 107-42) that included a fund to compensate victims and families of victims. Included in this Act was a rule stating that anyone who applies for compensation must waive all rights to file a lawsuit against any of the airlines involved.

However, should an individual choose not to accept compensation from the fund, they could file a lawsuit against the airlines involved. Ellen Mariani, whose husband died onboard the second airplane to hit the WTC, is one such individual. Mariani told Fox News that she chose to sue because, "I want justice. I want accountability. [...] I want the truth." Mariani isn't the only person to decide to reject the government fund and to sue; according to USA Today, almost one hundred lawsuits and class-action lawsuits have been filed against airlines. The disadvantage of rejecting the fund and choosing to sue seems to be the time frame involved with this kind of aviation lawsuit. As we have seen in other examples, filing a lawsuit against an airline for an incident that needs to be thoroughly investigated can take tens of years.

In October 2004, a Beechcraft King Air aircraft crashed into a mountain, seven miles from Blue Ridge Airport, Virginia. The aircraft was owned by Hendrick Motorsports and carried several members of the Hendrick family, including the company president John Hendrick and his brother, NASCAR racer Ricky Hendrick. All ten passengers onboard the aircraft were killed.

An investigation by the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that pilot error was among the reasons for the crash. The NTSB found that the plane missed its first landing attempt and then veered off course, and it also failed to climb to its assigned altitude of 2,600 ft. The NTSB report also suggested that the pilots failed to use their navigational aids to confirm the aircraft position during approach.

On February 7, 2006, relatives of two of the victims filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit partially blames John Hendrick, claiming he showed "conscious and intentional disregard" for the passengers onboard the aircraft following a telephone conversation before the flight. It is alleged that Randy Dorton, a passenger onboard the aircraft, telephoned his wife saying the flight would not go ahead due to the weather. However, the flight did go ahead despite the bad weather after Hendrick expressed desire not to be late for a race. The original flight was scheduled on a helicopter, but when the weather proved to be too harsh, it was rearranged onto the Hendrick Motorsports aircraft.

Landing at Chicago Midway International Airport, Southwest Airlines flight 1248 skidded off the end of the runway and onto a public street, crashing into three cars and killing a six-year-old child. The incident happened on December 8, 2005, as the crew of the Boeing 737 attempted to land the aircraft during severe snow showers in the Chicago area. The National Transport Safety Board identified the pressure that the pilots were under to land the aircraft, rather than diverting to an airport with a longer runway, by low-cost Southwest Airlines. The report stated that the Captain missed the landing zone on the runway and then proceeded to glide over the snow, smashing through crash barriers and finally coming to rest on South Central Avenue. All passengers were successfully evacuated using escape slides and steps. This crash drew great comparisons from another crash involving a Southwest Airlines aircraft in Burbank, California on March 5, 2000. In this incident, another Boeing 737 skidded off the end of the runway and ended up on a public street. This particular incident ended with no fatalities, but did bring attention to "dangerous approaches" that may be executed by pilots.

In the wake of the crash, several lawsuits were filed against Southwest, Boeing, and the City of Chicago, the operator of the airport. Aviation law firm Kreindler & Kreindler LLP filed a lawsuit, claiming that their client suffered physical and psychological damage as a result of the crash. The lawsuit claims that the Southwest crew were negligent and not properly trained in the use of the braking system. It alleges that the First Officer did not have his seat in a position in which he could reach the brakes, and this could account for the eighteen-second delay in applying the “reverse thrust” braking system. The lawsuit also claims that the onboard computer used to calculate the required landing distance was "negligently designed and programmed."

On April 7th, Clifford Law Offices of Chicago and Schlyer & Associates of Merrillville, Indiana, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Lisa and Leroy Woods, parents of the child killed as a result of the crash. The Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 hit the car in which he was travelling, also causing injuries to the three other car passengers.

On August 27, 2006, Comair Flight 5191 crashed off the end of the runway at Bluegrass Airport, Kentucky, killing all but one of the fifty people onboard. The crew of the Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet aligned the aircraft to the wrong runway, which proved to be too short for the takeoff. After confirming the correct runway to the control tower, the Flight Deck of Flight 5191 failed to notice that they were on the wrong runway, and instead, on the path to disaster.

The NTSB report stated that the pilots "took no actions to re-evaluate whether they were on the correct runway." A similar incident occurred at Blue Grass Airport in 1993, when a commercial jet was cleared for takeoff on Runway 22, but took Runway 26 instead. On this occasion, the flight crew realised their error just as the control tower noticed the mistake and aborted the takeoff. The NTSB also stated that the cockpit voice recorder showed violation of the "sterile cockpit" rule; pilots discussed their home life, work, and pets.

On September 1, 2006, a lawsuit was filed by attorneys acting for the family of a victim of Comair Flight 5191. The attorney said, "This was a needless tragedy. The conduct by Comair and air traffic controller was egregious [...] This conduct that caused this plane crash was among the most outrageous conduct that I have seen in my many years of aviation litigation practice."

The family of Cecile Moscoe also filed a lawsuit against Delta Airlines, the owner of Comair, and the aircraft manufacturers. Their attorney alleged that the design of the aircraft did not protect passengers from flammable fuel and that the onboard computers did not warn pilots they were on the wrong runway. Another lawsuit in the case is currently seeking class action status.

One hundred and forty-eight passengers and six crew members died on September 29, 2006, in Brazil's biggest air disaster to date. A Gol Airlines Boeing 737 plunged into the Amazon jungle after a mid-air collision with an ExcelAire operated Embraer Legacy aircraft. The ExcelAire aircraft made a successful landing shortly after the collision at an air force base. Following the crash, Brazilian authorities confiscated the passports of the two American pilots of the ExcelAire aircraft, acting on reports that the aircraft's transponder could have been deliberately turned off. Transponders send out information to the control tower, indicating the position of aircraft and alert pilots when another aircraft comes too close.

American lawyers representing the families of the Gol Airlines victims filed a lawsuit against ExcelAire Service Inc. and Honeywell International Inc., manufacturer of the transponder, claiming that their negligence caused the crash. The lawsuit claims that the ExcelAire aircraft was flying at the wrong altitude when the crash occurred. The attorney also claims that the transponder fitted to the aircraft was not functioning properly.

Helios Airways Flight 522 crashed into mountains north of Marathon, Greece, killing all one hundred and twenty-one people on board. The crash, which occurred on August 14, 2005, was blamed on a decompression that killed the pilots. Greek fighter jets, dispatched to make visual contact with the aircraft, found the pilots slumped over the cockpit seats.

On February 2, 2006, the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, LLP, announced that, in cooperation with the Cyprus-based law firm of Phoebus, Christos Clerides, N. Pirilides, & Associates, they would be representing families of victims of the crash of Helios Flight 522, and have filed a lawsuit against The Boeing Company in United States District Court in Chicago, Illinois. The law firms acquired the services of aviation expert Hans-Peter Graf, who commented, "The checklists that Boeing composed and recommended for the 737 aircraft made it easy for crews to take off and fly with the pressurization system set incorrectly. The alerts and warnings given to the crew were inexcusably vague and late. The design and implementation of a superior system would have cost a minimal amount. Thus, I am firmly convinced that Boeing and its partners played a substantial role in this crash, and they could have prevented it with a proper design of the crew alerting system." The lawsuit implied that there appears to have been negligence on the part of the aircraft pilots and that responsibility also lies with the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing.