Pax on QF72 planning a class action

[harvyk]

First of all, I couldn't in good conscious repeat the headline that nonews chose, second the quotes from pax makes me hate nonews even more, absolute sensationalist tripe. That said, it appears a few class actions have sprung up mainly against airbus. Just curious on peoples thoughts.


My personal belief is that the majority of pax where injured because they didn't leave their seatbelt on, this is despite been warned about it several times (assuming the FA's played the safety video, and mentioned on the ground and again when the light went off as per normal), thus they should be told to go away as they brought it on themselves. For the pax who where doing the right thing, I do feel sorry for them, but I don't think suing is the right thing to do. This was most likely not a case of negligence, but one more of bad luck.


For those who what to actually read the article in question see below.
Qantas flight turned into a 'war zone' | News.com.au

 

[Mal]

These traumatic descriptions form part of a class action

Hmmm.

And how many of those people were injured were wearing seatbelts while seated?

Let's refer to the ATSB Prelim report: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008070_prelim.pdf

Information has been obtained from over 10 per cent of the passengers to date. Based on this information, almost all of the passengers who were seated without seatbelts fastened received either serious or minor injuries during the first in-flight upset.

and

Initial information provided to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) was that 14 people were taken by air ambulance to Perth. Injuries were considered serious, but not life threatening, and included concussion and broken bones. In addition, up to 30 other people attended hospital with possible concussion, minor lacerations and fractures, with up to a further 30 or so people with minor bruises and stiff necks who did not need to attend hospital.
Subsequent information indicates that one flight attendant and at least 13 passengers were admitted to hospital. The nature and extent of the injuries varied considerably, including injuries listed above and spinal injuries.

It's amazing how wearing a seatbelt can help ...

 

[harvyk]

The abstract says it all

Most of the injuries involved passengers who were seated without their seatbelts fastened.

 

[JetLagged]

My personal belief is that the majority of pax where injured because they didn't leave their seatbelt on, this is despite been warned about it several times (assuming the FA's played the safety video, and mentioned on the ground and again when the light went off as per normal) ...

Harvyk - couldn't agree with you more. The thread that was running online here about those 'boring, repetitive' safety demonstrations before each flight can surely but put to bed - they do serve a purpose, especially for those who don't fly very regularly.

Even as a novice flyer, I kept my seatbelt on - albeit a bit looser than on take-off or landing - but still ensuring I can't hit the ceiling in the case of a sudden drop. With a partner who once witnessed an Asian gentleman with his head through a locker after encountering a bad air pocket, well just say I'd have to hit the headlines in that way!

Australians seem to be increasingly swallowing the American line that if something happens, someone is at deliberate fault, so sue them - of course, this means ignoring our own personal responsibility as well, doesn't it!

 

[Alanslegal]

Firstly, most of them did not have their seat belts on. Fine, some of them were on their way to the toilet - what does it matter? If it were a ship and you were leaning on the edge of the vessel, then the ship hit a hard wave and you fell overboard - is that the ship's fault?

Without looking at the poor article in too much detail, the plaintiff's argument is that a component of the plane was 'faulty' that caused it to nose-dive, resulting in some injury whether physical or psychological. It was not related to turbulence, though the info so far likely rules this out.

So in your example anat0l is now If it were a ship and you were leaning on the edge of the vessel, then the ship hit a hard wave - because of the faulty rudder steered into it - and you fell overboard - is that the ship's fault?

 

[Alanslegal]

I'm not a fan of these types of litigation especially in jurisdictions where they allow these contingency or % based fees ... I do hope that the defendants vigorously defend any civil claim. And I am sure the court will take into account any contributory failures by passenger/s for not wearing their seatbelt (when seated).

 

[harvyk]

Without looking at the poor article in too much detail, the plaintiff's argument is that a component of the plane was 'faulty' that caused it to nose-dive, resulting in some injury whether physical or psychological. It was not related to turbulence, though the info so far likely rules this out.

I don't think that the argument would fly, the failure of the component caused the aircraft to behave in a similar way as turbulence would.

It stands to reason that the seatbelts would still function in the same way and protect the pax from injury caused by this failure.

Thus had pax followed the airline guidelines as to appropriate use of seatbelts, then they also would have had a significantly reduced risk of injury as a result. The only exception I can see is if someone was walking down the isle for any reason and as injured as a result, as this is allowed on QF flights if the seatbelt light is off.

 

[Alanslegal]

I don't think that the argument would fly, the failure of the component caused the aircraft to behave in a similar way as turbulence would.

It stands to reason that the seatbelts would still function in the same way and protect the pax from injury caused by this failure.

Thus had pax followed the airline guidelines as to appropriate use of seatbelts, then they also would have had a significantly reduced risk of injury as a result. The only exception I can see is if someone was walking down the isle for any reason and as injured as a result, as this is allowed on QF flights if the seatbelt light is off.

The plaintiff's argument IMO could fly. Basically, it appears the faulty component caused the plane dive, crew and passengers were flung or not, and consequent to that some incurred injuries, both physical and psychological.

However, I did also post, that the court should also take into account any contribution the passenger/s did or did not do, towards those injuries. So if they didn't wear seatbelts whilst seated, then I hope they take this into account and say, the main (or only) contributor to their injuries .. is the passenger.

But more importantly I think is that a passenger could be seated, wearing a seat belt, the planed dived - and although they didn't sustain no physical injury, one could develop a psychological injury.

Anyway, we shall await and see the outcome.

 

[harvyk]

I'll put that into the we'll agree to disagree category, in any case we'll find out soon enough when a judge makes a decision...

 

[Smackbum]

The plane's software was faulty resulting in an unexpected and violent manoeuvre that caused injuries (some quite serious) to a number of passengers. Chance of success in litigation = 100%. The only thing in doubt is the final figure.

And hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on from push-back to nose-in. So many of you? Well you get a gold star for being so good (to go with that butter in your mouth).

 

[JetLagged]

The plane's software was faulty resulting in an unexpected and violent manoeuvre that caused injuries (some quite serious) to a number of passengers. Chance of success in litigation = 100%. The only thing in doubt is the final figure.

And hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on from push-back to nose-in. So many of you? Well you get a gold star for being so good (to go with that butter in your mouth).

Depends on who is at fault - if Qantas was negligent in not maintaining or intsalling etc - yes, then such litigation might succeed. If it was an Airbus problem - then the plaintiffs should be suing that company for faulty softwear which was then used as per specification.

As to the no of us who do keep their seatbelts on - yes, I do, even when sound asleep on my bed. And nearly all others I can observe do so unless travelling to and from the toilet, doing their recommended exercise routin for DVT - don't you?

 

[simongr]

And hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on from push-back to nose-in. So many of you? Well you get a gold star for being so good (to go with that butter in your mouth).

Out of interest do you wear a seatbelt in your car? Why do you condescend on people who wear seatbelts in flight.

I find it funny that it is "cool" not to wear a seatbelt on board or "it's ok because you wont get points on your license"

It is very simple - choose not to wear your seatbelt and you should be responsible for injuries sustained in flight.

Frankly I don't think QF should have paid for the hospital treatment of those not wearing seatbelts...

 

[harvyk]

I always wear my seatbelt, except when I need to use the facilities or stretching my legs.

This includes when I'm in a skybed and it's reclined into a bed. (as annoying as it is to keep it on, I'd rather that than the alternative if we hit turbulence).

 

[Mal]

The plane's software was faulty resulting in an unexpected and violent manoeuvre that caused injuries (some quite serious) to a number of passengers. Chance of success in litigation = 100%. The only thing in doubt is the final figure.

While people got injured in that incident, the whole concept of screaming "Oh I'm now traumatised", "quick find me a lawyer", "class action", "like a war zone" and the vultures (lawyers) circling passengers is sickening.

It's always the way. Lawyers sniff money and suddenly people start feeling more traumatised than ever, and tend to "ham it up" for their depositions.

It's also frustrating that many of the people seriously injured were not wearing their seatbelt and were seated in their seat. It is drummed into people many times during flying, and every time a similar incident occurs - the same thing comes out ... the people who were unbelted are significantly more likely to be seriously injured. Just the same as people who are unbelted when driving are significantly more likely to be seriously injured if braking suddenly or an accident occurs.

I don't doubt for a minute that some people have a legitimate claim against Qantas, Airbus and whoever else, but the way it is handled is pathetic. People seem to think the smallest thing that happens to them is worth millions of dollars in compensation... and most of the time have contributed somewhat to the effects anyway.

 

[harvyk]

The plane's software was faulty resulting in an unexpected and violent manoeuvre that caused injuries (some quite serious) to a number of passengers. Chance of success in litigation = 100%. The only thing in doubt is the final figure.

The problem is that the majority of injured pax where ignoring a safety requirement, whilst the majority of uninjured pax where paying attention to a safety requirement.

Whilst a good lawyer can do a lot to negate personal responsibility there is only so much which they can do. I expect qantas \ airbuses lawyers will harp on the seatbelt issue as realistically had all pax being using them as required by qantas then it would have significantly reduced the number of injuries as a result.

 

[straitman]

And hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on from push-back to nose-in. So many of you? Well you get a gold star for being so good (to go with that butter in your mouth).

A ridiculous and demeaning comment if I have ever heard one. :evil:

 

[oz_mark]

However, I did also post, that the court should also take into account any contribution the passenger/s did or did not do, towards those injuries. So if they didn't wear seatbelts whilst seated, then I hope they take this into account and say, the main (or only) contributor to their injuries .. is the passenger.

Although some wearing their seat belt with some slack did discover that they can come undone!

(I wonder if the seat belts on the A380 have the same problem, given they work differently)

 

[samh004]

The plane's software was faulty resulting in an unexpected and violent manoeuvre that caused injuries (some quite serious) to a number of passengers. Chance of success in litigation = 100%. The only thing in doubt is the final figure.

Was the software not a manufacturer issue, so suing Qantas serves what purpose?

And hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on from push-back to nose-in. So many of you? Well you get a gold star for being so good (to go with that butter in your mouth).

When I was younger, I’d be first to take it off, but these days, I can’t be bothered, you get used to the extra few grams of weight on your lap and don’t notice it eventually.

Perhaps if you stopped taking yours off straight away you’d realise this

 

[possumoz]

And hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on from push-back to nose-in. So many of you? Well you get a gold star for being so good (to go with that butter in your mouth).

*puts hand up...*

I always leave my seatbelt on except for when visiting the ..facilities..
I also pay attention to the FA and safety demo.

Next thing we know some yobbo will have a go at suing for negligence cause they weren't held down and made to watch the safety demo...

And I'll sue the passenger if we hit turbulence and you end up crashing down on me because you didn't have your seatbelt on...how dare you non seatbelt wearers endanger my safety or comfort.

 

[oz_mark]

And I'll sue the passenger if we hit turbulence and you end up crashing down on me because you didn't have your seatbelt on...how dare you non seatbelt wearers endanger my safety or comfort.

You are missing an important issue - and that is that these lawsuits tyically go after those with the deepest pockets, and that is unlikely to be a fellow passenger!

Compared to some class actions (e.g ones in the US suing Toyota for loss of resale value), the ones discussed in this thread arguably have more merit in some cases.