Cantor Fitzgerald Barred From Suing Airline Over Sept. 11 Employee Deaths

Source Article

Not exactly sure what to make of this.

On one hand, I find it somewhat despicable to sue the airline because its plane flew into the tower.

On the other hand, perhaps better screening could have avoided this accident.

How do you all see this?

the Billmeister

Originally posted by Billmeister
Source Article

Not exactly sure what to make of this.

On one hand, I find it somewhat despicable to sue the airline because its plane flew into the tower.

On the other hand, perhaps better screening could have avoided this accident.

How do you all see this?

the Billmeister

You brought up better screening.
I want to just say this. Those that bring a swiss army knife on an airplane aren't all terrorists.

Why can't we just issue air marshals or flight attendants to have some sort of equipment like tazers?
i mean you cannot protect millions in equipment and 300+ lifes on an airplane, and you need to screen everyone that gets on.. Then i'd presume that you should screen everyone before they get on public busses. (I know of one that has 50 people at least on the daily)

Gonna read the article.

Originally posted by Anttyk47

Originally posted by Billmeister
Source Article

Not exactly sure what to make of this.

On one hand, I find it somewhat despicable to sue the airline because its plane flew into the tower.

On the other hand, perhaps better screening could have avoided this accident.

How do you all see this?

the Billmeister

You brought up better screening.
I want to just say this. Those that bring a swiss army knife on an airplane aren't all terrorists.

Why can't we just issue air marshals or flight attendants to have some sort of equipment like tazers?
i mean you cannot protect millions in equipment and 300+ lifes on an airplane, and you need to screen everyone that gets on.. Then i'd presume that you should screen everyone before they get on public busses. (I know of one that has 50 people at least on the daily)

Gonna read the article.

I totally agree, in fact, I would be willing to forgo screening at the airport and would put a few bomb/weapon sniffing dogs in they are pretty amazing at detecting explosives!

Back to the article, isn't it a bit cold the way the sue for profit losses, and the defense rebuts with, "yeah, but those losses were caused by the death of the employees so that doesn't count."

I guess the whole thing is a little cold.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by Billmeister
Source Article

Not exactly sure what to make of this.

The nearest that I can interpret this, either Cantor Fitzgerals is a business entity and business entities can't bring wrongful death suits, or, they're basing their lawsuit upon future profits they can't prove they would've had.

No matter how you look at it, CF is just being pretty sleazy. Suing AA for the actions of the terrorists hijacking their planes is a kissing cousin to suing the gun manufacturers for criminals stealing and misusing their guns, which I oppose on intellectual, moral, legal, and every other ground you can think of.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Billmeister
Source Article

Not exactly sure what to make of this.

No matter how you look at it, CF is just being pretty sleazy. Suing AA for the actions of the terrorists hijacking their planes is a kissing cousin to suing the gun manufacturers for criminals stealing and misusing their guns, which I oppose on intellectual, moral, legal, and every other ground you can think of.

Sleazy sure does appear to be the appropriate description. It sure takes some gall to bring the suit up in the first place doesn't it? (Good example by the way)
Then again, I guess the legal responsibility of any corporation is to increase profit margin for its shareholders, so it had some sort of obligation to at least try. But, very, very sleazy in my book as well.
Luckily the law, and the judge are seeing it that way too. (so far!)

the Billmeister

well the company was all but destroyed by the airplane, thats a big for sure.
They could maybe sue other agencies for not doing their jobs too i take it?
Sue the air force for not adhering to well rehearsed protocols and sending jet fighters up earlier....Or sue the airtraffic controllers for not reporting the flights in a timely manner per SOP?
Sue the army for not listening to its own security and intelligence group Abel Danger....?
Sue the ISI for paying off Mohamed atta?(or that other moslem,whats his name...)
Sue the isreali phone service for not warning them too?
The firm must have collected some compensation for its losses already mustnt it?
does anybody have any idea how that worked for businesses etc?
Perhaps they could take a step lower and sue the victims families because the victims failed to try to stop the highjackers....

Originally posted by stirling
well the company was all but destroyed by the airplane, thats a big for sure.
They could maybe sue other agencies for not doing their jobs too i take it?
Sue the air force for not adhering to well rehearsed protocols and sending jet fighters up earlier....Or sue the airtraffic controllers for not reporting the flights in a timely manner per SOP?
Sue the army for not listening to its own security and intelligence group Abel Danger....?
Sue the ISI for paying off Mohamed atta?(or that other moslem,whats his name...)
Sue the isreali phone service for not warning them too?
The firm must have collected some compensation for its losses already mustnt it?
does anybody have any idea how that worked for businesses etc?
Perhaps they could take a step lower and sue the victims families because the victims failed to try to stop the highjackers....

Interesting points. I wonder if they were discussed during the staff meeting where they decided it was appropriate to sue for loss of profits due to massive employee deaths?
I imagine that if the law team would have seen potential cases, they would have tried those angles as well.

the Billmeister

reply to post by GoodOlDave


We are generally on the same page, however, I may have to differ on this one.

There are some factors here that have to be considered in the overall picture. AA, like Cantor Fitzgerald, are for-profit companies. AA, of course, cannot control the criminal acts of individuals that seek their services, however, we can't pretend that until 9/11 no one had ever hijacked a plane before. AA, like all other airlines, paid gate fees for the privilege of operating from certain airports. That made them culpable in the security presented there. Up until 9/11 the FAA had regulations regarding what passengers were and were not allowed to take on airplanes. However, enforcement was handled on a private level. Airlines and airports were free to impose more stringent restrictions if they so chose to. However, as we all know, airlines made money by moving passengers as quickly and as often as possible. Most airlines engage a level of security that was, at best, the minimal required by law. I think there may have been considerations from time to time to enhance security but the airlines, a for profit business, were hindered, of course, by the nature of competition. If a customer knows that it takes 15 minutes to get on a American plane and 1 hour to get on United, then United is going to lose.

Anyway, in the end, if CF can prove that economics was a factor in security then I think they have a case.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Up until 9/11 the FAA had regulations regarding what passengers were and were not allowed to take on airplanes. However, enforcement was handled on a private level.

That was what occurred to me upon first reading the article, so I would have thought that the FAA and/or the firm in charge of security at Logan (in this case) could potentially be considered for prosecution. As you point out, American Airlines did nothing that was against regulations per se.
Although, as you also point out, AA did the strict minimum, which is the nature of profit-based operations, certainly questionable (in hindsight mind you), but illegal, I don't think so.

the Billmeister

I don't know what to make of this either, without giving it a lot more thought. The airlines probably did what they were required to do.

It would be interesting to know if CF didn't have insurance to cover some of what they are suing for and collected on it. It would also be interesting to know if the families of the victims at CF or even CF as a company collected money from anywhere else.

reply to post by Billmeister


I am trying to avoid the concept of "prosecution" because that means they are criminally culpable and I do not believe that is the case. Howver, from a civil standpoint, I think they may have some exposure, but not much. As to CF's argument about unrealized profits, that argument does have plenty of precedent in law.

Lets, for a minute, forget about this as an act of terrorism. What if the plane had crashed for mechanical reasons but AA could show that they performed the minimum inspection and maintenance as required by law, does that let them completely off the hook from a civil standpoint? Is there a reasonable expectation that any given entitey, operating for a profit, would be first required to comply with law and regulation but also be expected to perform in manner that would minimize risk the general public whether that performance is required by law or not?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

We are generally on the same page, however, I may have to differ on this one.

There are some factors here that have to be considered in the overall picture. AA, like Cantor Fitzgerald, are for-profit companies. AA, of course, cannot control the criminal acts of individuals that seek their services, however, we can't pretend that until 9/11 no one had ever hijacked a plane before. AA, like all other airlines, paid gate fees for the privilege of operating from certain airports. That made them culpable in the security presented there. Up until 9/11 the FAA had regulations regarding what passengers were and were not allowed to take on airplanes. However, enforcement was handled on a private level. Airlines and airports were free to impose more stringent restrictions if they so chose to. However, as we all know, airlines made money by moving passengers as quickly and as often as possible. Most airlines engage a level of security that was, at best, the minimal required by law. I think there may have been considerations from time to time to enhance security but the airlines, a for profit business, were hindered, of course, by the nature of competition. If a customer knows that it takes 15 minutes to get on a American plane and 1 hour to get on United, then United is going to lose.

Anyway, in the end, if CF can prove that economics was a factor in security then I think they have a case.

Oh, they definitely have a case for damages, but what sort of damages? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know whether business entities can even sue for damages from wrongful deaths- they're not a living person so can they actually suffer from the wrongful death of actual living persons? I think that's the point the judge was making.

Was AA sloppy in their screening? Yes they were, and even in the 9/11 commission report it showed the security people assigned to screen passengers failed in their responsibilities. Nonetheless AA is every much a victim of this attack as Cantor Fitgerald is, and it was the criminal activity of the hijackers that originally started the domino effect of mischief that caused everyone to suffer.

I don't know, but I was told that Osama Bin Laden's assets were frozen by the gov't of Saudi Arabia. He inherited huge amounts of money from his construction magnate father so the money has to be sitting somewhere. One would think CF would sue the Saudi Gov't for access to those funds rather than AA.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Billmeister

 

I am trying to avoid the concept of "prosecution" because that means they are criminally culpable and I do not believe that is the case. Howver, from a civil standpoint, I think they may have some exposure, but not much. As to CF's argument about unrealized profits, that argument does have plenty of precedent in law.

Lets, for a minute, forget about this as an act of terrorism. What if the plane had crashed for mechanical reasons but AA could show that they performed the minimum inspection and maintenance as required by law, does that let them completely off the hook from a civil standpoint? Is there a reasonable expectation that any given entitey, operating for a profit, would be first required to comply with law and regulation but also be expected to perform in manner that would minimize risk the general public whether that performance is required by law or not?

I don't disagree, only, using your example, the mechanical maintenance was sub-contracted out to a third party. So I would argue that the responsibility lies with them and not AA. But, then again, I am no lawyer.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I don't know, but I was told that Osama Bin Laden's assets were frozen by the gov't of Saudi Arabia. He inherited huge amounts of money from his construction magnate father so the money has to be sitting somewhere. One would think CF would sue the Saudi Gov't for access to those funds rather than AA.

That is a good point, only Osama Bin Laden was never officially charged with any wrongdoing with respect to 9/11.

But, since almost every single hijacker is alleged to be from Saudi Arabia, if a connection can be made with the royal family, there could be a case for them being responsible for damages. Let's face it, the saudi royals do not need any frozen assets to help them fill their bank accounts.

the Billmeister