I am Michael Ehline, a Los Angeles and Texas airplane accident attorney. I have helped aviation victims for almost two decades, from falling luggage to helicopter crashes. I have represented thousands of injury victims since 2005 and have lobbied Congress for stronger transportation safety regulations. Can you imagine being aboard, flying with 400-600 Knott winds in your face, sitting in a seat, freezing to death? Since an incident involving an Alaska Airlines flight and a Boeing airplane departing from Portland, questions have been flying around faster than a jumbo jet at cruising speed. 

A seatbelt saved the life of a passenger seated just one row behind the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 door panel that blew out midair in January, according to a new lawsuit. https://t.co/KHLoROR78H

— NBC News (@NBCNews) March 15, 2024

In this case, a door panel blew out while the jet flew at 16,000 feet on January 5, 2023. Here, whistleblower John Barnett testified about his employer, Boeing, and the poor airworthiness of the planes he worked on. The following day, he was found dead in his truck after he failed to show up for the second part of his testimony. 

The people on that plane suffered severe emotional distress that will stay with them for life. How the aircraft was ever declared safe for takeoff remains a mystery and has fostered an environment of intense interest in the travel community. They are lucky the pilots made it back to Portland International Airport alive.

Security Camera Footage, Repairs, Suicide?

In recent weeks, a now-dead whistleblower, John Barnett, has blown the doors off of what appears to be a vast cover-up, placing cost-cutting and inclusiveness over airline passenger safety. His comments were about a Boeing Manufacturing plant in Charleston. This particular Alaska Airlines plane was there in September last year and delivered in October. This is also where the Alaska plane (Alaska Airlines Flight 1282) was built. 

Missing Bolts?

In that case, it appears Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, a private contractor, did rivet repairs. Four bolts were missing from the blowout panel/fuselage, which caused the panel to blow out. Based on its preliminary report, the head NTSB official is trying to find the person who removed and replaced the door panel, as the security footage was taped over.

“After retiring in 2019, Barnett accused Boeing, his employer of 32 years, of cutting corners and using sub-standard parts to build planes. He claimed to have reported this to management and been ignored, though Boeing has denied this.” – Newsweek.

Warned Media He Would Not Kill Himself

On March 9, 2024, he said he was not “suicidal,” then he allegedly killed himself.

Barnett said the company had not taken action, spurring him to go public out of concern for people’s safety. His lawyers are investigating, saying there is no way this is a suicide.

“We need more information about what happened to John,” said attorneys Robert Turkewitz and Brian Knowles. The security camera footage of work done to an Alaska Airlines plane, a Boeing 737 Max 9, has gone missing, raising suspicions of foul play. Whether there is a lawsuit for spoliation of evidence depends. However, no matter where the accident occurred, Boeing can be sued for negligence. It depends partly on the terms and services of the passenger ticket, including a jurisdiction and venue clause to sue. Let’s break it down. 

National Transportation Safety Board & Boeing’s Side

In their defense, Boeing told ABC News it would support the NTSB’s investigation, saying, “Transparently and proactively, we have supported all regulatory inquiries into this accident.” “We have worked hard to honor the rules about releasing investigative information in an environment of intense interest from our employees, customers, and other stakeholders, and we will continue our efforts to do so.”

“During a routine Alaska Airlines flight earlier this year, a Boeing plane’s door blew out mid-flight. Since that unnerving event, federal investigators have been tirelessly scrutinizing Boeing’s production process, seeking insight into what exactly went wrong.”

However, National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said her investigation has been hindered by Boeing’s lack of ‘essential’ documentation to understand the door malfunction’s nexus.

Boeing Security Footage of 737 Max Door Work Overwritten: NTSB

The report footage was ERASED. The National Transportation Safety Board’s letter to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation proclaims the missing footage is hampering the accident investigation. “To date, we still do not know who performed the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug on the accident aircraft,” according to the NTSB. It has been unable to interview the door crew manager at the Renton, Washington facility. He remains on medical leave. The agency stressed it is not trying to punish the worker(s).

Boeing manufactures aircraft subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The FAA has specific documentation and record-keeping rules, but these typically concern aircraft design, manufacture, and maintenance of the aircraft. We could find no regulations about recording and saving repair work footage.

Are you feeling confused? Feeling frustrated? Let’s investigate this surprising development further and see if a lawsuit against Boeing is viable. 

Boeing/United Airlines Problem

From allegations of poor flight controls and cutting corners, the NTSB has a lot on its hand with Boeing and now United. Scott Kirby, CEO of United Airlines, threatened to trim Boeing orders since its fleet of MAX 9 aircraft was grounded. This came after the Alaska Airlines door blowout.

Jennifer Homendy, chair of the NTSB, said a midair door blowout like the Boeing 737 MAX 9 fiasco” “can happen again.” She inferred there is a “problem with the process” of aircraft production.

Boeing Generally In Trouble?

As we delve into the meat of the issue, some spotlighted facts you ought to convenience yourself with include: 

Boeing released hundreds of pages of emails and internal communications to the Federal Aviation Administration concerning Boeing’s 737 Max jetliner. Jennifer Homendy is culling its safety culture and records spanning numerous years. Boeing initially delayed its response but finally disclosed other records for scrutiny.

Boeing has assured cooperation with the NTSB investigation, even if formal requests for such corrective actions have not been issued. 

Boeing Employees and Regulators

If need be, Boeing can reject NTSB findings– and demand further investigation or corrective actions. Some Boeing employees cast a doubtful shadow on the design of the Max and its simulator software. Part of Boeing’s decision-making process may involve automated processing. This is where machine learning and artificial intelligence come into play to refine its services.

• A Boeing plane in Japan was recently forced into an emergency landing over a cracked cockpit window.
• A Boeing 757 threw a front tire while departing for an international flight in January 2004. 
• A UK passenger saw duct on a Boeing 787 wing while flying to India.
• A United Airlines Boeing 777-300 had to make an emergency landing in March 2004. (5 accidents in about a week for United) 
• Ryanair has expressed a concern about Boeing’s quality control.
• Whistleblower John Barnett made his statements and was found dead in his truck before his testimony.

Boeing’s woes also hit carriers like Southwest Airlines, which exclusively flies Boeing 737s. Southwest lowered its 2024 capacity growth projection as a result. Go deeper: Boeing 737 Max production plagued by numerous problems, FAA audit finds

Can You Sue for Erasing – Civilly?

Although we found nothing about criminal/federal regulations, it could be prudent not to maintain recorded footage. A court could also consider it the destruction of evidence. You probably can’t sue Boeing for overwriting tapes, but discovery sanctions may be at play when you sue. 

Can You Get Money for Spoliation?

The answer to the question, “Can I sue Boeing for spoliation of evidence over-erased security footage?” depends. Spoliation of evidence is a crucial concept in legal proceedings. It involves intentional, negligent, or accidental withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. 

The opposing party’s intentional or negligent destruction or alteration of evidence could reveal details crucial to your case. Evidence tampering is often referred to as ‘spoliation of evidence.’  

According to American Bar Association Rule 3.4 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, destroying, altering, or concealing a document or other material relevant to a matter can lead to sanctions and severe professional consequences for the attorney involved. Notice they don’t say you can sue. For sure, in California, you’d have no case.

“Spoliation was a cause of action to sue in addition to the underlying action. Originally, spoliation damages were awarded by a jury in the case in chief, whereas modernly, discovery sanctions are awarded by a judge. Most California plaintiff’s lawyers hate that the California Supreme Court eliminated our ability to sue for a once-popular cause of action called “spoliation.” It was considered a tort to spoil or “destroy” evidence.” (Source Spoliation, Ehline Law.)

Are you so, taking Boeing to court for destruction of evidence? In theory, yes, it’s possible. But you’ll need to be armed with a thorough understanding of the doctrine in your state, solid evidence, and an experienced legal team to stand a chance.

Other Legal Grounds Grounds?

• Products Liability: This law allows some plaintiffs to sue a manufacturer if a product causes injury or damage due to design flaws, manufacturing defects, or false advertising. Here, Alask and passengers could file.
• Ordinary Negligence: You could sue if Boeing or Alaska Airline’s lack of reasonable care caused harm. If they failed to reasonably protect crucial security footage, which is part of their policy, perhaps a claim exists. Alaska should have noticed missing rivets before taking off, and that isn’t very careful if so. 
• Breach of warranty: If a company violates its guarantee about the safety or function of a product, you may sue it under breach of warranty laws. Passengers and Alaska must prove that the breach directly led to harm.

The investigation into Boeing encompasses so many facets. 

• Is Boeing expected to retain all forms of documentation and footage? What about evidence not directly related to the operation of the airplanes?
• What legal protections exist for passengers where safety is compromised? 

Damages

The passengers and Alaska have claims against Boeing. They would be entitled to economic losses and general damages. If Boeing knowingly destroyed or overwrote security footage, it could face legal consequences.

What About Wrongful Death of Whistleblower?

For now, it’s just a conspiracy theory that Boeing or an assassin took out the whistleblower here. Although suspicious, the survivors must show more than just a theory. A Boeing spokesperson sent condolences to the family.

Panel Blowout Evidence

While there may not be specific legal requirements for Boeing to retain security footage, there could be ethical or industry best practice standards encouraging retention. Failure to adhere could potentially damage Boeing’s reputation, which could result in other negative consequences. Standards are important, and we hope Boeing acts transparently and proactively. Any release of investigative information is vital to show Boeing is acting in good faith.

Conclusion

For sure, now there is an active case, there are rules about the release of public and confidential information. Unless it can be proven to have been done to conceal evidence, the taped-over security footage is probably not unlawful. This case highlights the complex interplay between corporate transparency, liability, and passenger safety. This case could be a game-changer in understanding passenger rights, corporate responsibility, and air travel. We’ll keep you in the loop as updates occur. Call (213) 596-9642 to learn if you have a case.

Citations:

• Newsweek
• Business Insider

Are We Closer To A Self Healing Airplane?

The advances that have been made in recent years with respect to manufacturing technologies are extraordinary. From artificial intelligence applications that optimize product design and reduce material waste, to the Internet Of Things (IoT) having transformed the production capacity and efficiency of smart factories, advanced manufacturing technologies have been revolutionary in every way.

Now with the advent of 3D printing or additive manufacturing – the construction of three-dimensional objects from a digital 3D model – industries including the manufacturing and aviation industries have enormous potential to completely revolutionize the way they do things. While 3D printing techniques first came to be in the late 90s, it wasn’t until 2019 that the reliability, precision, and material range of 3D printing had improved to the point where it was considered a viable industrial-production technology. Today, the technology has evolved to a point where researchers believe they have 3D printed the next generation of high strength, lightweight structures with automated self-healing properties.

Restoring Shapes And Structures While In Flight?

The USC team, led by Qiming Wang of the Sonny Astani Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, believe the application could have enormous benefits for the aviation industry, given the frequency and potential for airplanes to suffer damage mid-flight from fluctuations in air pressure and altitude, as well as hail and other interferences. The team’s work, which was published in Nature journal NPG Asia Materials, saw them create 3D lattice structures featuring repeating cells that can autonomously self heal by restoring the structure’s original shape and then healing the fatal fractures or breaks in the material.

The material produced by the 3D machines is characterized by stiffness and high strength and requires no human intervention to self-heal. Typically, seal healing materials need to be pushed together at the minimum – but these advances mean that the material does it entirely autonomously. “The shape memorization characteristic of our new material means the fractured pieces will align themselves back to the original shape autonomously, prior to beginning healing of the individual bonds,” explained Wang of the project.

Using a 3-D printing technique called stereolithography, by which light causes the liquid to solidify bit by bit to create solid lattice structures, the team began experimenting with the idea some time ago. To create the structures, the team needed to base their design on an existing self-healing innovation: that of a rubber-like material built using dynamic bonds which – when torn apart – use heat to self-heal.

The problem with this innovation, however, was that the material was typically too soft to support large weights. In order to deal with this challenge, the research team added crystalline domains to create an incredibly rigid, strong material that can support 1,000 times its own weight. With respect to airplanes, which typically weigh around 80,000 kilograms, this latest development could be game-changing.

The team envisions that using this 3D process, material sensors will be able to detect impact damage, trigger a heater, and commence the healing process – an entirely autonomous process requiring no human interaction. As a result of developing this self-healing material en masse for use in the aviation industry, production and flight costs could be reduced, as could the weight of the aircraft themselves – by up to 20% in fact. Maintenance costs could also be reduced over the long run. The benefits are endless, and they are exciting indeed.

Composites And Self Healing Aircraft.

Composite materials have already made the Boeing 787 about 20% lighter than if it were made with aluminum, as was used in previous jetliners. Add in self-healing abilities, and we have the thing that aviation dreams are made of. Back in 2009, it was said by Byron Pipes, professor of engineering at Purdue University, that “a self-healing airplane is infatuating to people because it would require no intervention,” Self-healing, he said, is the logical result of intelligent sensing and prognostics. And here we are, 11 years on, with a team of celebrated researchers claiming they have achieved this monumental feat. But it wasn’t until machine learning and AI came to be that it was truly possible.

The research was funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research Young Investigator Program and the National Science Foundation, and it is hoped this is just the beginning of their discovery process. It is not only the aviation industry that could benefit from this application – the researchers believe that the defense industry and the general automobile industry will also benefit. “When there is an accident, repairing dents and cracks on a car body is always very troublesome,”

Wang said. “But if the car body were made of our new lattice structures, this repair could occur autonomously, returning the body to its original shape and function, without additional cost or excessive repair times.” It is also believed that defense vehicles and products like bulletproof vests or tanks could utilize the self-healing material, allowing longer usage periods and better damage tolerance.

The future is an amazing thing with all these burgeoning technologies. However, nothing will ever be totally safe. And when someone does get injured, a negligence lawyer is the person people call. If you were hurt due to another person’s fault while on an aircraft, you can get a free consultation from Ehline Law Firm Personal Injury Attorneys, APLC at (213) 596-9642.

While airplane accidents can be devastating, preventable ones often hurt the most. At Ehline Law, our personal injury attorneys are here to review the details of a recent catastrophic accident involving an airplane propeller to determine whether it may have been an act of negligence. I am attorney Michael Ehline, a Texas and California injury attorney.

I write about tragedies in these and other states. Although I am not licensed to practice law in Kansas, I will explain general legal principles to help people understand fundamental rights. Obviously, if you need help finding a Kansas injury lawyer, I will try to help you since I care about people. Let’s go!

Skydiving Photographer Killed In Plane’s Propeller

On October 26, 2024, Amanda Gallagher, a 37-year-old skydiving photographer and a keen skydiver, headed to Air Capital Drop Zone in Derby, Kansas, to photograph jumpers and flights. It was just another regular working day without any events until one of the airplanes landed.

The Young Lady Dies from Critical Injuries After Backing into a Plane Propeller While Taking Pictures

As Amanda Gallagher, 37, continued to take pictures at the Derby skydiving center, she backed into an airplane propeller, causing her life-threatening injuries.

When the Sedgwick County EMS personnel arrived at the accident scene, they immediately transported the critically injured victim to Wesley Medical Center. Unfortunately, it was too late.

Gallagher passed away at the hospital due to the injuries sustained. The Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office confirmed her death, stating that she backed into a stationary airplane with a spinning propeller.

Air Capital Drop Zone Shamelessly Blames Amanda Gallagher?

After the tragic accident, Air Capital Drop Zone immediately released a bizarre statement that pinned the blame on Amanda Gallagher. It stated that the victim, for unknown reasons, moved in front of the wing near the airplane propeller, and as she stepped back slightly, the unfortunate incident unfolded.

One of the representatives of Cook Airfield, where the Derby skydiving center is located, tweeted about the tragic accident, requesting its followers to remember Amanda Gallagher, her family, friends, and Air Capital Drop Zone family in their prayers. They also said she would be greatly missed and refused to comment on the cause of the devastating incident or what should’ve happened differently.

Following the accident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) immediately sent their teams to recover evidence for a thorough investigation.

Recovering Compensation For Plane Propeller Accident?

Although the grieving family received $19,000 in donations from a GoFundMe campaign to pay for the funeral expenses, it may not be enough to cover the damages caused by the early demise of Amanda Gallagher, a loving daughter, sister, aunt, and friend. Fortunately, there may be a legal remedy in financial compensation.

Under personal injury law, surviving family members or personal representatives of a deceased’s estate may be able to bring a wrongful death claim or lawsuit if the death occurred due to the negligence of another individual or entity. However, before a party can pursue civil action, it’s essential to establish liability.

In the case of the recent moving airplane propeller accident in Derby, surviving family members may have the right to pursue damages if the incident occurred due to another’s negligence. They need to contact an experienced personal injury attorney to discuss the incident and learn more about their legal rights.

Who Is Liable in Accident Involving Spinning Plane Propeller?

According to Air Capital Drop Zone, Amanda Gallagher was responsible for her death, as she had her camera up to shoot photos before backing into the spinning airplane propeller.

On the other hand, Cook Airfield and its representatives have not blamed anyone for the unfortunate incident.

Establishing Liability in Cook Airfield Plane Accident

While establishing liability in this recent accident involving an airplane propeller may seem pretty straightforward, especially after the statement by Air Capital Drop Zone, there may be more to this story.

Amanda Gallagher was a professional skydiving photographer. This alone indicates that she was well aware of the dangers of being around moving or grounded airplanes. The question that arises here is whether she was violating basic safety procedures.

Besides looking at this accident from the perspective of a skydiving company, it’s also essential to consider another side of the story. Could Air Capital Drop Zone be responsible for the death of Amanda Gallagher? Did it do enough to ensure the protection of bystanders or photographers?

This could also turn into a premises liability case. Amanda Gallagher may have slipped due to a hazard, causing her to back into the spinning propeller.

An impartial investigation into the accident could reveal specific facts, portraying a complete picture of how the incident unraveled. This is important in establishing liability and determining whether the grieving family can recover compensation.

Investigation Is Key to Resolving Wrongful Death Cases

Whenever an accident happens, whether it involves a plane propeller or any other object, it’s crucial to conduct an impartial investigation as soon as possible to determine liability.

Can anyone sue for wrongful death? Witness statements, CCTV footage, copies of standard operating and basic safety procedures, and other essential documents could help understand how the tragic incident occurred.

In the case of Amanda Gallagher, an investigation could help determine who was at fault. Perhaps, after the airplane landed, it was positioned somewhere it shouldn’t have been. Or maybe Gallagher was engrossed in taking pictures and failed to notice the spinning propeller.

Kansas Is a Comparative Negligence State. This Could Impact the Outcome of the Wrongful Death Case.

In this case, another critical piece of information is that Kansas is a comparative negligence state. This means eligible plaintiffs may pursue damages even if the decedent was partially responsible for their accident injuries.

Since Kansas follows the modified comparative negligence rule, surviving family members or personal representatives of the deceased’s estate can only recover compensation if the decedent’s fault was 50% or lower. 51% responsibility for the accident or more could bar the plaintiffs from pursuing legal action.

Step to Take After the Deadly Propeller Accident at Kansas Airfield

Overcoming the grief of losing a loved one can take a long time. However, it’s essential to take the proper steps following a deadly accident to ensure financial protection and some closure.

After the funeral of Amanda Gallagher, the grieving family needs to speak to an experienced personal injury attorney. While Air Capital Drop Zone has denied liability in its statement following the accident, it’s crucial to investigate the incident, as there could be a probability that Gallagher may not be responsible.

Even if Amanda was liable for her injuries, Air Capital Drop Zone or Cook Airfield may also be accountable. Did the company follow all safety protocols? Was there negligence on behalf of the pilot? Were hazards the leading cause of the accident? An investigation may bring some evidence that could pave the path of financial recovery for the grieving family members.

There Is a Need to Act Quickly. Otherwise, Plaintiffs May Lose Their Rights!

The statute of limitations governs all personal injury and wrongful death cases. It sets a time limit within which eligible plaintiffs can pursue civil action by filing a claim or lawsuit. Failure to adhere to it may bar them from seeking compensation.

Most states, including Kansas, have a statute of limitations of two years for wrongful death cases. The clock starts ticking from the date of the decedent’s death.

Suppose the young lady and keen skydiver died yesterday shortly after the airplane landed at Cook Airfield. In this case, the statute of limitations would’ve begun from the time the victim breathed their last.

Seek Justice and Compensation with Ehline Law, a Top-rated Law Firm in California!

A wrongful death can send ripples across the entire family. While no amount of money can bring back your loved one, pursuing legal action could provide closure and financial protection to you and those left behind.

At Ehline Law, our Los Angeles personal injury attorneys have decades of extensive expertise in handling wrongful death cases and protecting the rights of their clients. We have the resources and skills to conduct a proper investigation after an accident, gather evidence, and build a solid claim to hold the responsible parties accountable for your loss.

Call us at (833) LETS-SUE to schedule a free consultation with our skilled personal injury attorneys and discuss your wrongful death claim or lawsuit with a legal expert today!

Yes. But it’s sparking a new area of emotion-based injuries while flying on an American Airlines, Boeing 737. If your oxygen masks dropped in turbulence aboard an airplane, you likely know the terror felt when crashing. Imagine you’re buckled up in your seat, ready for takeoff, and suddenly, the unsettling scent of smoke dances through the cabin, or you see an engine in flames. This dreadful scenario is not just a product of an overactive imagination. Recently, passengers on a Boeing 737 had a firsthand encounter with this experience.

I am Michael Ehline, a Los Angeles airplane accident attorney. I have well over a decade of experience suing negligent airlines. In this article, I will uncover problems with Boeing and explain whether or not you can sue this sullied aircraft manufacturer for injuries if hurt by one of their airliners. 

A chilling moment raises a crucial question, “Can passengers, including those flying on United Airlines and Southwest, sue in the event of such incidents?”

The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free. – Henry David Thoreau

Aviation Law 101 

Let’s dive a little deeper. Many national and international regulations bind the aviation industry. Knowing your rights as a passenger may not always be straightforward due to the legal undertones involved. However, understanding the basics is an essential lifeline in dire circumstances. 

“Airlines, in their ‘contract of carriage,’ often deny liability for damages due to an ‘Act of God,’ ‘Act of War,’ and ‘consequences of Weather Conditions.’ Interestingly, plane malfunctions are not included in this list.”

Now, given the scenario of a panic-stricken cabin and frantic cries due to a sudden fire outbreak, one can reasonably assume that the malfunctions and missteps of the aircraft are to be blamed. So what does this mean for you, as a passenger? 

• It signifies that the airline cannot shrug off responsibility.
• You are entitled to compensation if evidence points to neglect or a malfunction.
• Your safety should never be compromised due to an airline’s shortcomings.

What The National Transportation Safety Board Says

The NTSB found that most aviation accidents and deaths arise in general aviation aircraft and concluded that the general aviation accident rate of 1.31 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight hours presents a public safety problem. 

Connection With Federal Aviation Administration

They urged the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board to act to address the problem. Aviation accident victims face daunting challenges in obtaining negligence damages for injuries. Federal law does not require general aviation pilots or mechanics to carry liability insurance, and many are effectively “judgment-proof” for that reason.

In short, the answer to “Can passengers on a Boeing 737 sue in the wake of such a fire incident?” is, without a doubt, yes. Getting justice won’t be easy. Victims will need experienced legal counsel and a thorough understanding of passenger rights.

What Can Passengers Sue For?

If you were in a plane crash, could you sue the airline? Not only can you sue the airline, but you can also sue the flight crew, the manufacturer, the engine maker, the government whose air traffic control you are under, the pilot, the pilot’s dog, and probably the person who cooked the food. 

A combination of the following usually causes general aviation crashes: 

• Pilot error, 
• Aircraft or component failure due to design or manufacture defects, 
• Aircraft or component failure because of poor maintenance, 
• Errors by the FAA (e.g., air traffic control). 

No matter who was at fault in a general aviation accident, a victim faces significant practical and legal challenges. a. Pilot and Maintenance Error Pilot error has always been a leading cause of general aviation accidents. 9 Pilots bear a heavy responsibility for the safe operation of their

Passenger Status and Venue?

However, international flights would depend on the International Convention a State has signed. Two Conventions deal with Passenger liability compensation—the Warsaw Convention 1929 & its amendments done at various points in time, and the Montreal Convention 1999. Montreal Convention 199 specifies 100,000 SDRs, adjusted for inflation, per passenger. That amount will be payable to the families of the dead air passengers by the insurance company that the airline has.

Air Traffic Control?

Maybe. The fact is, anyone who could have contributed at all to the crash can be sued. If you don’t, you could lose the right to sue them later, so typically, everyone involved is sued except the pilot’s dog.

After all these incidents and hearings, you may wonder whether passengers on a Boeing 737 MAX can potentially sue for a tangible danger like a fire incident. Well, the answer is complex and tied up in various legal contexts. 

But No Physical Injury Took Place?

First, let’s clear up a common misperception. Passengers who were not physically injured may find it difficult to successfully sue for damages solely based on fear or emotional distress experienced during in-flight emergencies unless they can prove a physical manifestation of this stress. 

That being said, passengers who have suffered physical injuries due to such incidents certainly have potential grounds for a lawsuit. Under international aviation law, airlines can be held responsible for any harm to passengers or their belongings in the case of accidents during flight or embarking or disembarking, be it due to a fire, system failure, or any other reason. As per the Montreal Convention, ratified by 136 countries, including the United States, the liability in passenger death or personal injury can reach up to 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (equivalent to around USD 157,000), irrespective of the circumstances. 

Moreover, a lawsuit may take another shape entirely if it can be demonstrated that the manufacturer, Boeing, in this case, exhibited negligence in ensuring the safety of their product. This could include failures in design, manufacturing, and even providing adequate warnings or instructions regarding potential risks. Boeing could potentially be held liable under product liability law in these instances. However, proving negligence will need substantial evidence. 

Additionally, passengers may sue the FAA if it comes to light that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) was lax in its oversight or failed to ensure proper safety standards. 

Suing a governmental agency often requires a showing of systemic failure or misconduct.

• The Flight Safety Foundation tracks accidents globally. It promotes aviation safety and effectiveness.
• A hearing conducted by the Full Committee on December 11, 2019, scrutinized the FAA’s oversight of the Boeing 737 MAX’s certification.
• Chairs DeFazio and Larsen have urged the FAA to conduct third-party reviews into the Boeing 737-MAX’s safety standards.
• The Boeing Company is under intense scrutiny over multiple Boeing 737 Max jet incidents.
• The State of Aviation Safety hearing on July 17, 2019, discussed various safety strategic changes in the aviation sector.
• The Final Committee Report led to bipartisan legislation. This was designed to strengthen the FAA’s certification process and improve the general regulatory system.
• Chairs DeFazio and Larsen have applauded a distinct FAA third-party review of the Boeing 737 Max.
• Chairs DeFazio and Larsen requested the DOT (Department of Transportation) Inspector General to investigate the FAA’s certification of Boeing 737 MAX.
• Several bills focused on strengthening aviation safety have been advanced by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee during full committee markup.
• Preliminary investigative findings on Boeing 737 MAX were issued by the House Transportation Committee nearly a year after initiating its investigation.

Buoyed by the situation’s urgency and the public’s interest, Chairs DeFazio and Larsen have consistently determined to get to the bottom of the certification concerns surrounding the Boeing 737 MAX. They have been instrumental in initiating a third-party review. It was necessary to examine how these planes were approved for mass use thoroughly. 

Lawsuits Filed Over Airplane Door Failure

Plane passengers have already sued Boeing and Alaska Airlines for emotional distress in another matter. On January 5, a Boeing 737 MAX 9 door plug blew during an Alaska Airlines flight. This took place at 16,000 feet. It created a massive, gaping hole, leading to an emergency landing. Surprisingly, there were no serious bodily injuries. Still, four passengers filed suit for  “intense fear, distress, anxiety, trauma, physical pain, and other injuries.”  

Lawsuits Over Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (“MCAS”)

Some Boeing employees and pilots have stated that Boeing failed to communicate flight-stabilizing MCAS features on its Max 8 properly. For example, back in March 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, a Max 8, crashed after takeoff, killing all 157 aboard. Before this, a Lion Air Max 8 crash occurred. Then, another Max 8 crashed just six minutes after taking off from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This place was en route to Nairobi, Kenya, on March 10, 2019. 

Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee said the flight crew tried to pull the aircraft out of a dive caused by a glitching sensor. This caused the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to tilt the craft nose down. Usually, pilots can manually override these types of automated systems with ease. Not so with the Max 8s. In the case of a Max 8, the panicked crew would have been forced to follow a specific sequence of steps to retake control of the plane’s “angle of attack.”

Accordingly, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the aircraft on March 13, 2019, reversing a Continued Airworthiness Notice issued two days prior. The FAA’s March 13, 2019, subsequent grounding of all Boeing 737 Max.

Post-Crash Investigations / Litigation

In addition to the fire, there are other lawsuits. With post-crash investigations, severe design defects in the 737 Max were uncovered. Boeing’s intentional refusal to provide proper pilot training and guidance to the airline industry over the MCAS nose-down stall-countering system. Boeing’s competition with Airbus seems to have played a role in ignoring the design risks of its 737 Max. The 737 Max evolution opened the door to at least 346 fatalities.

The U.S. Congressional House Committee on Transportation declared this was due to financial pressure that “resulted in extensive efforts to cut costs, [and] maintain the 737 Max program schedule …”.

Domestic and international post-crash investigations determined at least two crashes were caused by a weak U.S. Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness certification. Allegedly, Boeing relied too much on its airline manufacturer’s self-certification process; It also overrated the 737 Max’s new safety and design features.

Boeing placed profits over people in its haste to sell its redesigned 737 Max aircraft. Above all else, Boeing needed to preserve market share. The recent fire underscores just how potentially dangerous the Max 8 has been.

Financial Consequences for Boeing

The consequences for Boeing have been catastrophic. And this fire isn’t making things any easier. Its financial recovery will cost Boeing billions of dollars and reduce stock value. It faces canceled purchase agreements. Also, delayed orders can cause cancellations and late penalties. Boeing wants to renegotiate purchase agreements. Airlines are seeking loss of revenue compensation, too. Insurance companies refuse to cover business interruption losses. Aviation and property insurance policies have a language that says, “This policy does not insure against loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by loss of market.” Read Duane Reade v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance, 611 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2005) to learn more.

The Role of the Third-Party Review:  

An outside review looks at the approval of the Boeing 737 MAX. Its goal is to help the FAA recover credibility in its certification process. This independent review is designed to be transparent.  

An Amphitheatre for Stakeholder Perspectives:  

A noteworthy initiative in these investigations was the Aviation Subcommittee hearing announced by DeFazio and Larsen. This provided a platform for stakeholders to be heard. From engineers and pilots to airline crew and passengers, each perspective is vital in understanding the implications of the base issue and, importantly, any potential compensatory measures. 

Legislation Advances:  

The urgency of constructing a safer aviation environment has been echoed through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee halls. Several bills have been introduced during full committee markup to strengthen aviation safety. This highlights the collective consensus to prioritize aviation safety. It also acts as a strategic response to the Boeing 737 MAX. 

Moving Forward:  

While the fire and crash situation is layered and depends on several factors, including the jurisdiction, the passenger’s direct experience, and the provisions of the Montreal Convention, passenger claims could potentially chart a new course in aviation law. After all, safety is not just about physical well-being but mental and emotional peace of mind.

The emphasis here, however, is on ‘bodily.’ It scrapes over psychological trauma, not qualifying it as a stand-alone damage claim. Considering this, the agreement’s recognition of passengers’ emotional distress directly caused by plane incidents becomes crucial. Remember that aerophobic passenger from your last flight?

Imagine their terror in an emergency. Unquestionably, they’ll be left with psychological scarring. But can passengers be compensated? That’s where the ambiguity of the current aviation law lies, and it’s this ambiguity that passengers on the 737 Max may be able to challenge. 

While suing based on emotional distress may be relatively uncharted territory in the legal world, there have been successful precedents. Air France Flight 358 survivors proved their claims and were compensated for their distress. Can that open doors for the Boeing 737 MAX screaming passengers? Possibly. 

However, the challenge lies in substantiating such claims. Proving psychological damage could be a complex process and requires an in-depth understanding of legal procedure, along with strong supporting evidence. Plus, the jurisdiction you’re in would play a role in this. While some countries may be more supportive of such claims, others might call it a far stretch. 

The first duty of society is justice. – Alexander Hamilton

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has also investigated whether Boeing misled investors over safety practices.

Recent Whistleblower “Suicides”?

Two world-famous injury attorneys, Brian Knowles and Rob Turkewitz, represented several Boeing whistleblowers who committed “suicide.” According to new stories, “more than ten” more whistleblowers are out there. These whistleblowers consist of past and present employees. News reports say these people are “safe and sound.” Hopefully, they will survive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, passengers’ fire and smoke injuries can potentially cause Boeing and others to sue. It could be argued that the catastrophic failures and fires aboard the 737 MAX caused significant distress and trauma. But the legal landscape is still somewhat murky; local regulations, the Montreal Convention, and past legal precedents all come into play. It will be a pioneering lawsuit that could potentially make waves in the courtrooms and how the aviation industry views passenger safety and rights. If you wish to speak to airplane accident attorney Michael Ehline about your case, please call him at (213) 596-9642.

Researching In The Aftermath Of A Tragedy

Two years ago, Marine Corps families received a call they should never have. Families of our military personnel prepare themselves for the worst. They know that it could come. But rarely do we think that deaths can happen due to the mistakes of other Americans. This is difficult for many families to handle. On December 6, 2018, off Japan’s coast, a F/A18D Hornet and KC-130J Hercules attempted a nighttime midair refueling.

Due to a severe error, the two craft collided, killing the Hornet pilot and five Marines on the C-130. After almost two years, an investigation found severe issues with how the brass handled the event. The initial investigation found that nighttime and drug use were among the issues that caused the airplane crash. Furthermore, the Marine Corps believed that one of the pilots was not qualified to fly at night. Now it appears the initial investigation did not do its proper homework and released misleading findings. This will have clear implications for internal review procedures. Not to mention how nighttime refueling occurs. Furthermore, it also requires swift action by the military to reassert confidence among its members.

For Michael Ehline, this is far more than just an event that happened far away. This is about the soul of our nation. Ehline is the current head of the Ehline Law Firm Personal Injury Attorneys APLC. However, his experience in law informs him only so much. Much of his expertise– and care– on the subject is due to his personal experiences. Ehline is a former member of the United States Marine Corps.

He was discharged honorably after a severe injury. For him, the injury and death of other Corps members are not just an academic exercise. It is often life or death for the young men and women who pledge to defend our nation. And Ehline learned this lesson many times growing up. His father, Paul Ehline, served in Vietnam with the USMC over two tours. For both generations of Ehline, the concern was the same.

Who is taking care of our brothers and sisters in arms? The military and the federal government have many past and present obligations for our service members. That is why Ehline studied this issue and decided to write about it. Of course, there are critical legal implications, but more than that, lives are the military’s future. E is at the state line and spends much of his current time as the head of a critical military-centric law firm in Los Angeles.

That’s how he carved out a reputation as a fighter for those who donned the uniform. He is also available for interviews or comments on the issue. He can be reached at (213) 596-9642 or losangeles@ehlinelaw.com.

Flaws In The Investigation?

The aftermath of the crash near Japan was only the beginning. Families’ pain and suffering– not knowing the exact cause of the crash and why their loved ones would not be returning home to them. During this time of global uncertainty, this must have been incredibly unsettling. A further review found that the Marine Corps personnel conducting the first investigation was not impartial, thorough, or accurate, according to Lt. General Robert Hedelund, the Marine Corps longest-serving aviator, according to Military.com.

The implications are clear and deep:

“Because of this, we lost trust with the American people, the families of those who perished, and the young men and women who fly our aircraft,” Hedelund wrote.

A further review was conducted on the orders of Assistant Commandant General Gary Thomas in 2019. Several senior officers are now facing disciplinary action due to the crash and investigation.

“Two senior officers — a two-star general and a colonel — have now received formal reprimands amid the renewed examination of shortfalls leading up to the crash. And an aviation safety officer who was incorrectly blamed after the first investigation has now been cleared of any wrongdoing.”

A Need For A Clear Review Process

My time in the Corps was not that of senior brass. However, I understand the importance of the chain of command and morale among those in uniform. We have to be sure of how these incidents are reported. For ourselves. For the families. And for the Marine Corps. Imagine the pain and suffering of the families kept in the dark for almost two years.

Or that of the aviation safety officer initially blamed due to the first review. This is all unacceptable. Hopefully, it will lead to a more comprehensive approach. And the use of outside eyes that can see the situation. Furthermore, the call for– and conducting of the second investigation– will also be a valuable precedent for looking into future events. Hopefully, this review will save future lives rather than go around as a matter of pushing papers.

Take, for example, the initial investigation that blamed the Hornet pilot, Capt. Jahmar Resilard, who perished in the incident. He did not deserve to be run through the mud and called a pilot unable to fulfill his duty. Fortunately, now the review has cleared his name:

“He was absolutely qualified to go do that mission,” one of the aviation experts said. “To go fly at night, you have to have flown in the day in the last 14 days — he did. To go tanking at night, you have to be proficient during the day — he was. He needed to be [night vision goggles] qualified, he was. And he needed to have an instructor in the flight that could instruct him — he had that. “He had all the wickets met.”

It’s not the first Asian controversy involving U.S. Marines. The tragic crash and its aftermath will be a crucial turning point in the Corps’ future, hopefully only leading to improvements at every level. And lives saved.

Works Cited:

• Military.com: General, Colonel Rebuked After Marine Corps Finds Serious Flaws in Fatal Crash Investigation

• LAX Shuttle Accidents
• LAX Taxi Accidents
• More LAX Airport Accidents
  • LAX Wheelchair Accidents
  • Employment Law Claims
  • Workplace Accident Compensation
  • Underinsured & Uninsured Motorist Attorneys in Los Angeles
  • Property Damages Recovery