• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Airways passengers get $5,000 each; is it enough?

No, I am saying AA is responsible for the injuries of the passengers that were injured.

It would be the same thing if it were a no fault accident where one of the passengers was injured in a taxi cab. The liability is greater because they were paying for safe delivery to their destination.

I don't see how AA can be responsible for an act of nature. That's not only silly it's ludicrous. The pilot did EVERYTHING right.

Had he... tried to land at a runway, and failed due to pilot error... he's at fault.

Crap like this makes me believe it's time to over throw the whole damned system.
 
I don't see how AA can be responsible for an act of nature. That's not only silly it's ludicrous. The pilot did EVERYTHING right.

Had he... tried to land at a runway, and failed due to pilot error... he's at fault.

Crap like this makes me believe it's time to over throw the whole damned system.

They already did that once when insurance law pertaining to bodily injury was moved from a fault system to a no fault system. Most states have "no fault" systems in place so that the good driver does not have to fight with the insurance company to have money dispensed for injury to himself and his passengers.

Damage to the vehicle is still managed through tort (lawsuit) where fault determines liability.

I don't think you should be held liable for passengers in your vehicle except when they are paying you for the service of delivering them to a destination (like in a taxi or a plane). However, when they are paying for a service, the dynamic becomes one of you accepting liability for their well-being beyond social interaction that leads them to be in your vehicle as your guests.
 
I can see Jallman's point on this up to a certain point. They did pay to have safe travel on this airplane. And while it was a freak act, it is still their fault.

At the same time, if it was not for the airlines employee they should probably be dead right now. Unlike a taxicab, "accidents" in a plane don't tend to result in bodily harm, they result in bodily death. The fact that AA's employee was able to pull off a miraculous maneuver to actually save all their lives should, from a general feeling stand point not necessarily a legal one, play into AA's favor.

I won't speak about the legality of this because frankly I don't know the laws at all and I don't want to speak about something I'm so ignorant of.

From a general feeling standpoint, I believe that the airline should pay for any medical fees for physical injuries on top of the $5,000. I think the potential for emotional damage should not be held over the airlines head, as it was a freak accident that the people survived only because of the airlines employee's talent and skill.
 
From a general feeling standpoint, I believe that the airline should pay for any medical fees for physical injuries on top of the $5,000. I think the potential for emotional damage should not be held over the airlines head, as it was a freak accident that the people survived only because of the airlines employee's talent and skill.

I agree with you on that last part. I know if I survived a plane crash, I would feel empowered in a way. I like to think of myself as invincible anyway so it would just be playing to a psychosis I already have. :mrgreen:
 
I remember this pretty little Canadian back in '79 on my trip through Europe. Shoulda kept up with her.
 
I hate plaintiff's attorneys as much as anyone else, but I don't think this is that big of a deal. It doesn't sound like anyone is seeking (or could possibly win) punitive damages, so the only thing that people are asking for is compensatory damages.

If someone lost their laptop/bberry/luggage/business papers, broke their nose, spent the night in the hospital, etc., then I see no reason why they shouldn't be compensated for those things.

Is it US Air's fault? No, but they have insurance to cover this exact thing for a reason.
 
US Airways passengers get $5,000 each; is it enough? - USATODAY.com

I think that anyone that was on that flight, crying 5k ain't enough for them... should be forced to say... watch unedited video of a few airliner crashes. Ya know the ones that have the bodies all burnt, shreaded and bloodied.

And then slapped, repeatedly with a fish. A dead smelly fish.
I think it's more than enough, and if I were one of the passengers, I'd give at least 80% to the pilot as a small Thank You. The 20% I'd keep would be to cover the damaged luggage.
 
Last edited:
I think those sneaky Canadians trained those geese for that mission. But we'll have NORAD keep an eye out from now on. ;)
I'm not so sure it was Kanuckistani Geese. Though these look like Hongcouver Taxi drivers...
image001.jpg
 
5000 wouldn't even cover the cost of the suits I take with me on vacation.



Meh, in todays TSA world, I usually ship my luggage to my destination.


But yeah. I'd be SOL to on what I carry if My Amex did not provide me with insurance.
 
If I use a specific credit card to book the trip, my luggage and trip are automatically insured.

That's good. I'd be afraid to trust the airlines otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom