Think about the points it raises and why the lady is trying to sue United.
The only point I thought the article really raised was, "Survivors please don't join in in suing the airlines, it isn't patriotic." Honestly, they didn't give one good reason for this lady not to sue.
Now think about it realistically. At some point frivolous lawsuits become so engaging in court, that they seriously detract from courts being able to pursue "honest" criminals (and no, this is not an oxymoron, it is use of the word in its correct form).
Huh? Since this is not a criminal suit, but a civil suit, it has no bearing on the ability of criminal courts to go after "honest" criminals.
Now you might say this lawsuit is not frivolous, that the airline had a real responsibility to go "above and beyond" to secure the safety of its passengers.
I sincerely doubt whether Ellen Mariani's lawyers will claim that the airline had a real responsibility to go "above and beyond". More likely the will claim that the airlines didn't even try to do an adequate job on security matters.
Well I claim that they made a damn good effort. It is really hard to secure anything totally. Would you like to be the systems administrator on a server right after it has been hacked? We all know that no system is full proof, but we take the risks anyway.
You don't read the news very frequently, do you? To say that airline security in many US airports is abysmal would be rather charitable.
Getting on a plane is no different. Riding in a car is no different. Taking an elevator is no different.
Incorrect. Four people armed with box cutters in a car or elevator would not be capable of knocking over the Word Trade Centers.
What is different is people's irrational response to tragedy that is caused by freak, random events (and planned acts of terrorism, although these are rarer). If anything, the lady should be suing the Taliban, or some other terrorist organization.
If it can be demonstrated that United was negligent in its security practices and if it can be shown that this negligence contributed to the events of September 11th, does it not follow that United bears part of the blame?
Let's say that an SUV with flawed tires is put into a situation where it would not have flipped if its tires were not flawed by a terrorist in a bigger SUV intentionally ramming into the first SUV. Given that if the tires were not flawed, the SUV would not have flipped, is not the tire manufacturer partly responsible for the accident (and especially so if it can be demonstrated that the tire company knew about the flaws in the tires)?
Suing United is just a money-grabbing scheme.
On the one hand, yes it is a money grabbing scheme. On the other hand, it may also be much more than that. For example, given that Ellen Mariani bought her husband's plan ticket as a surprise with the proceeds of personal endeavors such as yard sales, the lawsuit might be a way of soothing her conscience over her role in the drama. It could also be that Ellen Mariani is interested in seeing an airline get slapped with a big enough fine for it start to take notice of security.
While she is claiming to not be applying for any money from the Federal fund created for such a purpose, she is going after United for "unspecified amounts".
So taking money from an orgnization that may have directly profitted off of intentionally ignoring security concerns is no different from taking money from taxpayers that have no direct link?
Money does not solve "substantial non-economic damages including "loss of companionship, grief, sorrow, pain and anguish.", and her lawyer even goes further to state "Mrs. Mariani doesn't want the taxpayers' money,'' he said. "She wants her day in court with United Airlines.''
This could be the case. Money may very well be of secondary concern to Ellen Mariani. It may even be of secondary concern to her lawyer.
Well she obviously wants United's money.
Really? You can read her mind?
Why else could she possibly want to go to court? Does she want to air her dirty laundry? Does she want to point out to United (just in case they didn't notice the hijacking of their planes) that there might have been a problem on September 11?
Such little imagination. I thought of two reasons above. I could probably think of more.
Silly people get silly ideas stuck in their head. Wasting taxpayers money on the court case, after saying she doesn't want the taxpayers' money", seems pretty damn stupid to me. Her case will cost more than what the fund would ever have given her. It is like suing someone for $500 when you waste 100 hours of their time at $400 per hour. The math does not work.
How will the court case waste taxpayers money? Given that it is a civil suit, one of the parties will have to reimburse the court for costs incurred.
People need to be more realistic. Lashing out at someone who is "realistically" not to blame for what happened (and even if they are, I think they realized their problem, and are going to great lengths to make sure it never happens again), is ludicrous.
One would have thought that after the rash of hijackings in the seventies and after the rash of bombings in the eighties that airlines would have gone to great lengths to make certain that they have adequate security. The fact of the matter is that airline security has routinely been the target of exposes, ridicule, criticism and reproach and many airlines have done very little to improve the situation.
Darwinism espouses learning through experience, trial and error.
And going to court over this is not learning by trial and error how? ;)
While this was a catastrophe beyond imaging, it fits under the "error" category.
Stephen King imagined something very much like September 11 in The Running Man except in that tome the "terrorist" was the good guy. George Carlin imagined terrorists taking over a plain with pocket knives in one of his routines from eighties or nineties (Are you diseased or something like that).
The hostile takeovers by terrorists certainly was imaginable. It was also preventable (although perhaps not by methods that most travellers by air would be willing to accept). Ellen Mariani will likely have to prove with a preponderance of evidence not only that United could have reasonably forseen an attack like this, but also that their negligence contributed to the terrorists being able to carry out their nefarious plans. I'm not a lawyer, but I belive that all United has to do is to show that they were not negligent or that even if they weren't negligent this attack would still have happened. (And personally I believe that the second line of defense is the way to go, I don't think that this type of attack could have been prevented short of several armed gards on a plane which AFAIK is currently against the law.)
But why can't Ellen have her day in court? If her lawsuit really is as frivilous as you seem to think, the judge will throw her case out and (I believe, but could be wrong) that she will have to pay for court costs and United's relevant legal expenses. On the other hand, her suit may very well have merit and if it does then the Darwinism of letting both sides attempt to prove their case before a judge or jury is the best way to find out whose case has the most merit.
Have a day,
Lee Irenæus Malatesta