Airline Lawsuits San Francisco CA

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.