The latest round of settlements included the case of Patrick Driscoll, 70, of Carmel, N.Y., a retired research director at Bell Communications who was on Flight 93. His case was scheduled to become the first to go to trial on Monday. In a statement after the settlement, Mr. Driscoll’s widow, Adelaide, said that documents uncovered during the investigation before trial had “helped to expose aviation security weakness.” She did not elaborate.
LinkThe plaintiffs point to box-cutters carried by the hijackers as evidence of lapses in airport security. To further support their contention that the airlines could have been more vigilant, they cite, in their master liability complaint, a 1999 Federal Aviation Administration report saying Osama bin Laden had “implied” that he could use a shoulder-fired missile to shoot down a military passenger aircraft.
Lawyers for the defendants in the coming damages trials — United and American Airlines; airport security companies; Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer; and others — say the lawsuits are misguided, that the aviation industry played by the government rules at the time, and that the terrorists knew what they could get away with.
LinkI would think the best chance was for US intel to prevent the al Qaeda operatives from boarding the planes. Yet the airlines have settled many cases without getting a ruling on whether FBI agents must testify.
There were recommended reforms that the airlines didn't implement such as reinforced cockpit doors. But does something like this make the airlines legally liable?
One failure that would make liability a huge deal for the airlines (and make settlements the priority) is if airline employees helped the alleged hijackers in some manner. Perhaps that is what the families learned.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
