Pax on QF72 planning a class action

[NYCguy]

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).

Anyone who takes their belt off for extended periods in the cruise is a prized d*ckhead. What's the point you're trying to prove? "Oh, look what a hero I am, I've got me seatbelt off! I sure hope that there's some turbulence so I can have some cool stories to tell at the pub after me 17th Scotch and Coke. Dude, I was THE coolest person on that whole flight! And I took it off again just after we landed, I mean, I am just so cool, look up the word 'cool' in the coughking dictionary and there is a photo of me right there! I AM A GOD!!!!!!!"

And then they'd have the hide to join some sleazy, lowlife, bottom-feeding personal injury-lawyers' class action, or appear on a tabloid TV show in their neck brace.

Oish... Kids...

 

[Maca44]

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.

It is my understanding that if it was an alleged software fault, then this fault caused the aircraft to act differently..the fault did not cause the injuries to the pax. The injuries were apparently caused by pax not wearing seatbelts, but there would no doubt be those pax using the WC etc.

 

[Smackbum]

It is my understanding that if it was an alleged software fault, then this fault caused the aircraft to act differently..the fault did not cause the injuries to the pax. The injuries were apparently caused by pax not wearing seatbelts, but there would no doubt be those pax using the WC etc.

Sorry to quote only you Maca44 ... but as a test case for those that can't read a simple post - yours will do nicely.

My question was "hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on from push-back to nose-in"? It's a simple question. It has a simple answer. That answer will be a small percentage - particularly on long haul legs.

Yes - I always wear a seatbelt in the car (front or back). Yes - I always put my seatbelt on while seated in planes. I am not stupid. But on almost every flight there will be times that I have to go to the toilet, or retrieve my laptop or some other item from the OHL, or maybe (gasp!) I just need to stretch my legs and am willing to take my chance with unexpected turbulence because these days its very unexpected.

The lawyers that will represent these plaintiffs are also not stupid. If the defendents try to flick the blame on the passengers they will just say "The seatbelt sign was off and my client was getting up to go to the toilet. Thanks for your time and please make the cheque out to cash."

Being thrown around a cabin and suffering injuries that require hospitalisation is understandably traumatic. That these injuries were sustained due to professional negligence is without doubt. This is most definitely NOT a case of vixatious litigation.

 

[JetLagged]

Sorry to quote only you Maca44 ... but as a test case for those that can't read a simple post - yours will do nicely.

Smackbum, actually, your original postiung and subsequent comments raised more than one issue - or at least abscured this as your one and only point, if that is what you intended.

Being thrown around a cabin and suffering injuries that require hospitalisation is understandably traumatic. That these injuries were sustained due to professional negligence is without doubt. This is most definitely NOT a case of vixatious litigation.

IS it without doubt? If so, WHOSE professional negligence? If this was shown to have been an Airbus matter and not Qantas', as much of the investigation to date seems to raise the significance of, then why is Qantas made to appear the cold, calculating culprit? Name both parties if someone is seeking true justice, rather than just appearing to be appealing to the litiguous self-servers.

The ONLY people who should be entitled to 'pain and suffering' assistance are those who did observe correct procedure. And, by the way, the word is vexatious!

 

[QF WP]

My question was "hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on from push-back to nose-in"? It's a simple question. It has a simple answer. That answer will be a small percentage - particularly on long haul legs.

Well, my hands up - I only take it off if I'm getting up (toilet, stretch, getting things out of overhead locker). I think your assertion that it is a low number is countered by the small number of pax who are hurt in these types of mishaps. Therefore, I'd assert that most people heed the warnings and stay belted.

 

[Smackbum]

Well, my hands up - I only take it off if I'm getting up (toilet, stretch, getting things out of overhead locker). I think your assertion that it is a low number is countered by the small number of pax who are hurt in these types of mishaps. Therefore, I'd assert that most people heed the warnings and stay belted.

Lindsay - I believe you are a moderator so I will say this very carefully. I believe that very few people on a long haul flight walk in, sit down, belt up, wait, stand up, walk off. I am probably a bit more of a fidget than most, but I would be out of my seat between 1 and 4 times on average. I only do this when the seatbelt sign is off and I always fasten my seatbelt when seated regardless. I hope I am clear.

There will certainly be a number of passengers who were seated and not wearing their belts. How exactly would you ascertain who these passengers were? How would you prove that they hadn't just sat down or were about to stand up and therefore had a legitimate reason for not being clicked in when they were suddenly thrown against the ceiling?

In other news that some posters have failed to pickup :-

Qantas is not a defendent in this action
The plaintiffs include 2 off-duty Qantas staff
"Passengers suffered spinal, head, neck and chest injuries from being catapulted into the overhead lockers. Others lost teeth, tore knee ligaments and suffered serious cuts and broken ribs, feet, ankles and hands in the incident." -This is not turbulence, this is a faulty vehicle
Oh and it is "vexatious" not "vixatious" - if only every other poster on this thread would put their hand up and say "I was wrong".

 

[QF WP]

Lindsay - I believe you are a moderator so I will say this very carefully.

Ah yes, I am....and I appreciate your carefulness

I believe that very few people on a long haul flight walk in, sit down, belt up, wait, stand up, walk off.

and I would agree. Most pax are mindful of DVT risks alongside the risks of having their belt off at an inopportune time during flight...

I am probably a bit more of a fidget than most, but I would be out of my seat between 1 and 4 times on average. I only do this when the seatbelt sign is off and I always fasten my seatbelt when seated regardless.

As I would expect, you and many others (like me) are mindful of reducing risk to our safety.

I hope I am clear.

5x5.

There will certainly be a number of passengers who were seated and not wearing their belts. How exactly would you ascertain who these passengers were? How would you prove that they hadn't just sat down or were about to stand up and therefore had a legitimate reason for not being clicked in when they were suddenly thrown against the ceiling?

Witness statements from those seating in the same row would be a good start, along with recordings or witness statements of any announcements or directions the crew may have given the whole plane, specific sections or pax. I agree some may have extenuating circumstances for not being belted in at that exact point of time when the accidents happen...

 

[markis10]

Lindsay - I believe you are a moderator so I will say this very carefully.

I would like to see non moderators and mods treated the same with politeness and respect at AFF since we are trying to live in a society that does not differentiate by class, this board is one of the few ones that I participate on that does not have heavy deletions and mass participation by trolls getting a kick out of turning a good topic to rubbish, would really like to see it stay that way please, as its been most rewarding to participate in the various discussions.

Personally I would have said "hands up all those who always keep their seat belts on WHEN SEATED from push-back to nose-in" which is exactly the requirement stipulated by Qantas. In terms of the action, if you are up and walking around or attending to personal matters in the restrooms then i can understand the merit of such action, however I certainly do not side with those injured whilst seating, of which there were significant numbers in this inicident, I personally liken it to going against a red light when crossing a road.

Based on my experience its quite normal to note many pax do undo their belts once the light is off, I would say every 5 flights I will be seated next to someone who does that, it is up to them to make their own assessment as to the risk of their actions, and I will leave it their own sense of moral judgement as to whether they should be blaming someone else for getting it wrong in that context.

If your seated next to me on a flight and undo your seatbelt you wont hear a word from me about it at the time, but thats not to say I wont become a witness for the defendant in a subsequent suit should something go wrong, unlike a car accident there is a very good record of witnessess available for both parties to call.

 

[Mal]

unlike a car accident there is a very good record of witnessess available for both parties to call.

And of course the ATSB surveys that they ask passengers to fill out after an accident / interviews with passengers as well ... I'm sure they could be called in as evidence during a trial.

 

[harvyk]

Lets take a step back here. QF72 is not a long haul flight, it is a medium haul at roughly 5 and a half hours long.

Now over flights of that length of time I will usually get up at least once if not twice during a flight. However that does not say that I do so every flight. I have also been more than happy to stay put over that length of time without needing to leave my seat.

So had I been on QF72 on the day in question, then there is every chance I would not have left my seat once during the flight.

 

[markis10]

Lets take a step back here. QF72 is not a long haul flight, it is a medium haul at roughly 5 and a half hours long.
........So had I been on QF72 on the day in question, then there is every chance I would not have left my seat once during the flight.

Yes but I think the key question is, of those that intend to be part of the legal action, how many fit this phrase as taken from the incident report, those standing suffered less as far as injuries goe since they travelled less distance:

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

 

[harvyk]

Yes but I think the key question is, of those that intend to be part of the legal action, how many fit this phrase as taken from the incident report, those standing suffered less as far as injuries goe since they travelled less distance:

My response was more towards "smackbum's" remarks about wearing seltbelts, and in their backpeddeling they made comments about everyone would leave their seat during a long haul flight. Which is probably true. But QF72 is not a long haul.

It was my attempt at bringing the discussion back to QF72 rather than going off on a tangent about getting gold stars for obeying instructions.

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

No arguments there, it even says so on the ATSB report, also I noticed on the ATSB report there they make a reminder about seatbelts.

 

[markis10]

My response was more towards "smackbum's" remarks about wearing seltbelts, and in their backpeddeling they made comments about everyone would leave their seat during a long haul flight. Which is probably true. But QF72 is not a long haul.

It was my attempt at bringing the discussion back to QF72 rather than going off on a tangent about getting gold stars for obeying instructions.



No arguments there, it even says so on the ATSB report, also I noticed on the ATSB report there they make a reminder about seatbelts.

Sorry, I was not quite sure where your post was leading to, have to agree that I would be unlikely to leave my seat for such a flight, all depends on the frequency of the drinks being served.

 

[drron]

Lets just be practical here.There is a likely probability there will be some sort of settlement.This will be to decrease legal costs.Funny that on Friday I received the report of a class action taken over the failure of a public company.As I was both a creditor and a shareholder I thought it in my best interests to sign up to the class action.Over $1 mill went to the plaintiff lawyers.
Creditors will get-0.00 cents in the dollar.Class action registrants will get $0.00 each.
Now again I am a confirmed cynic but to me there is only going to be 1 winner in this.

 

[oz_mark]

No arguments there, it even says so on the ATSB report, also I noticed on the ATSB report there they make a reminder about seatbelts.

The crux of the matter though is that the probem was caused by an alleged system fault (be it hardware or software). Now, the ATSB report would lead us to conclude that the failure of people to wear seatbelts contributed to the extent of their physical injuries. There is still the issue of psychological problems and so on.

For these reasons, I believe that there is some chance of the class action succeeding. The seatbelt issue may result in some partial fault being attributed to the passengers.