Airlines sued in runway crash

CD · Post by CD » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:24 pm

Airlines sued in runway crash
By CP

June 30, 2007

VANCOUVER -- A woman whose Air Canada plane was involved in a collision with a MyTravel Airbus on the runway at Vancouver International Airport is suing both airlines.

Jeanne Heil's B.C. Supreme Court lawsuit blames both Air Canada and MyTravel Canada for her injuries.

Her lawsuit says the July 3, 2005, collision, between the Air Canada Dash 8 and the MyTravel Airbus A330 happened while the Airbus was moving into takeoff position.

The Heil lawsuit says both operators were negligent for failing to take precautions to avoid a collision.

She's suing for an undetermined amount for a long list of injuries, including neck and shoulder pain, headaches and sleep disturbance.

Neither of the defendants has yet filed a statement of defence.

jackrabbit · Post by **jackrabbit** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:09 pm

F@#king unbelievable!!

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:40 pm

Surprised they aren't also suing the "queen" for not getting those collision avoidance thingies in place sooner.

yycflyguy · Post by **yycflyguy** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:12 pm

Can you say "cash grab"? I see the American mentality is alive and well in Canada too.

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:34 pm

So, what happened in that accident? What were the extent of her injuries? Were the airlines neglegent?

767 · Post by **767** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:08 am

she should not only lose, but should be sentenced until such a time that she admits shes stupid as f - - - !

Jeremy Kent · Post by **Jeremy Kent** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:21 am

Hopefully she wastes a load of her own time and money with a suit that goes nowhere. (Just a shame about the court's wasted time.)

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:08 am

Hey this is one benefit of getting payed like shit - notice the pilot's didn't get named in the suit?

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:24 am

I guess her and her lawyers haven't read the fine print on her tickets. There are caps on the amounts carriers can pay when they are sued. Plus her lawyers have to prove negligence first. 75k-150k were the numbers IIRC depending on the domestic, transborder or international. So sue away, she'll get nothing and her lawyers will get a nice used BMW.

CD · Post by CD » Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:39 am

I suspect that you are thinking of the liability outlined in the Warsaw Convention.

However, legal proceedings can award damages greater than those specified in the Convention, though in this case, it is unlikely that any award will go to the plaintiff.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:56 am

Liability waivers aren't worth much in court. Judges aren't bound by them and can do what they think is right in the circumstances.

Like most lawsuits, this will likely settle out of court with the insurance company giving her a few grand to make her go away, give them a guaranteed result, and save themselves the time and money required to prepare for court.

Legacy · Post by **Legacy** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:24 am

But the other 200 pax were fine.

60N · Post by **60N** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:42 am

The real problem with this incident and many other unfortunate events is the bloodsucking tendencies of the legal profession, read "ambulance chasers".

What do you call 150 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? Answer, A good start.

Or, what is the difference between a dead skunk in the middle of the road and a dead lawyer in the middle of the road. Answer, there are skid marks in front of the dead skunk!

Lawyers are an unfortunate necessity in our society especially if you are afflicted with AIDS(aviation induced divorce syndrome).

abc xyz · Post by **abc xyz** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:51 am

its scary we allow people like this to walk freely among us. what a waste of skin. pathetic

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:22 am

She's suing for an undetermined amount for a long list of injuries, including neck and shoulder pain, headaches and sleep disturbance.

Given that she could receive such incredibly extenuous injuries from what amounted to the equivalent of fender bender, this person should never have been, or be allowed to in the future, ride in any mode of transportation for fear of certain catastrophic bodily failure of some sort!

How the f#$% a person like this can look at themselves in the mirror and not real back in shameful disgust is beyond me.

Walking Zombie · Post by **Walking Zombie** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 2:03 pm

abc xyz wrote:its scary we allow people like this to walk freely among us. what a waste of skin. pathetic

Agreed this is sick.

WZ

somepilot · Post by **somepilot** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:42 pm

Hey, maybe the pilots will be charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

tofo · Post by **tofo** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 7:19 pm

or the manufactures for putting such long wings/low tails (I know the -8 is a high tail) on the planes. Or the airport for having an area that fits more than one plane at a time. or ATC for giving a clearance for pushback at their discression (don't konw if they had pushed back yet). this is good times. could do this for awhile.

MUSKEG · Post by **MUSKEG** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:15 am

A perfect candidate for the no fly, drive, ride of any sort list. We allow them to be this way by not publicly ridiculing her and her lier.

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:50 am

I have not been surprised about hearing of lawsuits of this nature ever since that elderly lady went to court claiming a certain fast food restaurant should have warned her the coffee she was served was hot. She claimed injuries due to spilling some on her hand, sued AND WON! I think she was awarded a million?

PC12flyer · Post by **PC12flyer** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:20 am

Or the guy who drove his Winibago off the road because he put cruise control on and got up to make a sandwich... I'm pretty sure he won a huge settlement and now the manual must clearly state that cruise control will not drive the vehical, just maintain speed. I mean seriously, how stupid do you have to be! If you're that dumb you should probably be walking around wrapped up in packaging foam for fear of walking into a telephone pole or something! This is stupidity at its finest!

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:33 am

This is going back a few years. If you look on cop cars it'll usually say in emergency dial 9-1-1. Apparently at one time they said dial 9-11 as in nine eleven. Some old girls husband took a header and she went to dial said number. She sued someone because she couldn't find the eleven button on her telephone and it took extra time to get emergency services there.

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:31 am

Gilette - the lady you speak of (who wasn't elderly) was burned quite severely at a fast food resteraunt by her coffee - It was not just her hand, it actually spilled on her and was hot enough that it melted her spandex shorts. In court, it was shown that this company kept their coffee considerably hotter than their comptetitors, despite having recieved repeated complaints about the temperature. Further, when the lady did burn herself, the staff refused any assistance, and refused to even call her an ambulance or let her use a phone on the premises to call one herself. It's still a pretty hefty award, but I hate hearing people toss that case out as an example of over-litigiousness as it's usually grossly misrepresented.

Snowgoose - that sounds like an urban legend to me.

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:02 am

There are many opinions expressed here by people who likely do not have all the facts of this case.

I don't know them either, therefore I won't speculate as to whether the lawsuit is frivolous or legitimate.

I suggest others not enter verdicts one way or another without the case facts.

CD · Post by CD » Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:22 am

Lommer wrote:Gilette - the lady you speak of (who wasn't elderly) was burned quite severely at a fast food resteraunt by her coffee - It was not just her hand, it actually spilled on her and was hot enough that it melted her spandex shorts.

...

Snowgoose - that sounds like an urban legend to me.

Lommer... You appear to have the facts of the case incorrect as well (unless there was more than one):

Background of the case
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-thru of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[7]

Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case
Liebeck Attorney Gives Side of Hot-Coffee Case

Airlines sued in runway crash

Airlines sued in runway crash

airlines sued in runway crash