Qantas attendants suing Rolls Royce

[Inver]

A QANTAS flight crew who endured a near-disastrous engine explosion are leading a class action over the trauma they suffered in the mid-air incident.

The 17 crew from NSW are the first to sign up to the negligence lawsuit against global engine giant Rolls Royce, claiming "psychological injury as a result of the engine failure" over Indonesia on November 4, 2010.


Read more: No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au

 

[medhead]

Have any of the FAs stopped working because of the trauma? Anyone know?

 

[codash1099]

A QANTAS flight crew who endured a near-disastrous engine explosion are leading a class action over the trauma they suffered in the mid-air incident.

The 17 crew from NSW are the first to sign up to the negligence lawsuit against global engine giant Rolls Royce, claiming "psychological injury as a result of the engine failure" over Indonesia on November 4, 2010.


Read more: No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au

If they succeed, would this open the door for passengers to do the same thing? It would certainly set an interesting precedent.

 

[medhead]

If they succeed, would this open the door for passengers to do the same thing? It would certainly set an interesting precedent.

The smh version of the story says they're trying to include passengers in the action

 

[Hvr]

Why wouldn't they sue their employer who would then recover any costs from RR? Since they were on duty at the time surely the employer is liable/responsible? Be interested to hear a lawyer's opinion.

 

[harvyk]

Why wouldn't they sue their employer who would then recover any costs from RR? Since they were on duty at the time surely the employer is liable/responsible? Be interested to hear a lawyer's opinion.

Not a lawyer, but I can see why a lawyer would go after RR and not QF...

I would suspect it is because QF was operating the engines within manufacturers specifications and in accordance to all maintenance schedules as put out by the manufacturer. It is this reason why I suspect QF was able to claim compensation from RR in the first place.

Had QF not followed the instruction manual to the letter I would suspect that QF would also be a target for such lawsuits. However it's a little hard to go after a company which is using all reasonable care in the operation of equipment not built by them.

 

[BAM1748]

It would be workers comp wouldn't it.

 

[anat0l]

Not a lawyer, but I can see why a lawyer would go after RR and not QF...

I would suspect it is because QF was operating the engines within manufacturers specifications and in accordance to all maintenance schedules as put out by the manufacturer. It is this reason why I suspect QF was able to claim compensation from RR in the first place.

Had QF not followed the instruction manual to the letter I would suspect that QF would also be a target for such lawsuits. However it's a little hard to go after a company which is using all reasonable care in the operation of equipment not built by them.

Far from a lawyer here either, but my two cents...

I don't think many will see it like that.

At least in OHS terms, most people would understand that employers ultimately have vicarious liability. That said, when brought to court, it may just be ruled that Qantas does not deserve apportionment of the blame and hence the case would be thrown and proceed to the next liable target, RR. However, to have such a case thrown is not trivial (but that's a consideration on both sides).

Anyway, from the article it seems this case has been "baking" for a while, and only come to a new head now. I really wonder how the plantiffs are going to prove negligence on the part of RR, particularly if the damage is trauma and stress (rather than a more standard physical injury of sorts) - not that those kinds of damages are insignificant at all, but they are difficult to connect causally in court IMO. It'll be interesting to see what damages are being claimed. It'll also be interesting to see if RR will come down hard on Qantas exec for not curtailing such action against them after they have paid massive compensation.

I love also how the legal company representing the class action has proudly said they are taking on the case on a "no win, no fee" basis. They probably didn't mention that if the class action succeeds, they will take a massive cut of the payout. Also if they lose, there's no legal fees, but who will pick up the counter costs? Maybe it's a bit of journalistic creativity, but this is anything but altruism.

 

[medhead]

A couple of thoughts wrt to other posts.

Regarding workers comp, isn't that there to cover injuries at work and also lost income as a result. Injuries might include mental trauma but that was the point of my question. Have any of the FAs stopped working as a result of the incident? Besides some (important) counselling sessions its not clear there has been a real monetary loss. In any case, I read this as a claim for "pain and suffering" not actually loses or medical expenses that would normally be covered by worker's comp.

Regarding claiming against qantas and then qantas claiming against RR. Hasn't qantas settled their compensation claim against RR? I'd expect that agreement to include that it is a full and final settlement for the incident. Hence qantas may have already given up their ability to hit RR up for more money. That then gets into stuff about qantas' liability for the incident if they did operate the engines as recommended.

 

[harvyk]

<snip>
Anyway, from the article it seems this case has been "baking" for a while, and only come to a new head now. I really wonder how the plantiffs are going to prove negligence on the part of RR, particularly if the damage is trauma and stress (rather than a more standard physical injury of sorts) - not that those kinds of damages are insignificant at all, but they are difficult to connect causally in court IMO. It'll be interesting to see what damages are being claimed. It'll also be interesting to see if RR will come down hard on Qantas exec for not curtailing such action against them after they have paid massive compensation.
<snip>

I expect that they will be able to claim negligence against RR in the same way that an architect has to continue to have insurance even after they retire in case a building which they designed falls down 40 years after it was built. (I was a little surprised when a architect friend of mine told me this)

Ultimately the designer of a system can be held liable if that system fails due to a design fault, especially if it fails in a dangerous way which the RR engine failure certainly was dangerous for both the people in the air as well as the people on the ground.

 

[VHOEJ]

I have to agree about the comments going over RR rather than QF. If QF were not operating the aircraft correctly, they would go after them.

Should be interesting to see how the case does go.

 

[Maca44]

In situations like this Plaintiffs can lodge a claim against the worker's compensation insurer or public liability insurer. The reason potential Plaintiffs (more likely their lawyers) prefer to claim against the liability insurer is that if they succeed in a claim for workers compensation the courts may award weekly benefits etc, but if they succeed against the liability insurer they can seek a lump sum payment. In most liability cases the lawyers (for example this one involving QF and/or RR) would join QF and RR as defendants, and they would let the legal system fight it out to determine which defendant was liable. The courts can even proportion any payout figure between the defendants named in the proceedings.

In relation to the comment by Anat01 concerning the lawyers acting on a no win, no fee basis, it is correct that if the class action succeeds they will take huge legal costs from the payout, and in the majority of no win no pay cases the Plaintiff's lawyers "can" (repeat can) claim up to 65% of any payout figure because they infer it is they who are taking the risk of doing all the work without any guarantee of recouping fees.

PS I am now a lawyer, but have been involved in law and litigation matters for the past 30 years.