Miami Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Another Airbus Crash- Travelers becoming concerned about airline safety records and airline travel

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:01:18 GMT

Yemen flight IY 626 was en route from Yemen to Comoros when it encountered what was described as some “tough weather”. The Airbus A310, holding 153 people, was preparing to land when the plane flew into 71 mile an hour winds. The plane was only 11 miles from its destination when it crashed into the Indian Ocean, killing all those onboard.

An HIS Jane’s expert, Chris Yates, stated that “weather may indeed have been the primary cause of the crash of this Yemeni Air A310-300.” The Airbus jet that ultimately crashed into the Indian Ocean was being monitored by EU authorities, according to Dominique Bussereau, France’s transportation minister. Bussereau told French reporters that inspectors had noted several faults on the Yemenia Airways jet, and was being more closely monitored in preparation to be heard by the European Union Security Committee. Yates told CNN that “It’s more than likely to be a weather-related incident. Having said that you cannot rule out a maintenance issue”

This is the second crash involving an Airbus jet in only a month. Air France Airbus A330 crashed while on route to Paris from Rio de Janeiro on June 1^st. All of the passengers have been presumed dead and the cause of the crash is still under investigation. United States accident investigators have been researching recent airspeed and altitude indicator failures aboard the Airbus jet airplanes. Although two flights this past month have reported problems in their instrumentation, they have been able to land safely with no injuries. These issues have raised concern as to the composite materials used in the construction of the Airbus jets, with questions of its strength and ability to withstand stress.

A recent statement made by a certified aircraft maintenance professional in Florida said that “airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite materials.”

The aviation community, and the world as a whole, waits to see what the investigation will bring as to the fate of the Airbus jets. As those around the world pay their respects to those lost in such tragedies beyond their control, we look forward to a safer plane flight tomorrow.

Meanwhile, as a first in several decades, travelers are investigating airline safety records and considering that airline travel is not the only means to get around. To get a pulse of how the world is reacting, not just those involved "in the industry", take a glimpse on Twitter and Facebook. You will find the messages about Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett have been replaced with "I hope my flight isn't an Airbus" and "I think we will drive instead of fly". Between the flurry of high profile deaths, and the reporting of back to back major commercial airline crashes, questions of one's own mortality seem inevitable. Still, as a sign of hope and life, a five year old was found today among the wreckage. He is alive and doing fine. A miracle of enormous significance in these troubling times.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Traveling this summer outside of the US? Be careful what you sign when you check in.

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:41:00 GMT

If you’ve ever been to an athletic event, you know that when two teams compete, often one is “home” and one is “away”. You prefer for your team to be home, not just because it makes it easier for you to get to the game, but also because it tends to increase the chances of victory. This is referred to as “home court advantage”. The home team has the advantage of higher attendance by fans, comfort and familiarity in the arena, and time to prepare for the traveling team’s arrival. To a certain extent, the same can be said for the current status of resort litigation. When you’re involved in any law suit, it is beneficial to be in your own state or country where you can easily travel, understand the system, and communicate with a local attorney who is familiar with local laws. This is particularly true of the United States legal court system.

However, if you travel and find yourself injured, it can now be difficult to get the home court advantage. Actually, it can be difficult to even bring a case at all.

Take a common vacation scenario for example. Many people choose to vacation at large Caribbean resorts. It's become almost an extension of Florida. As with most agreements, your reservation at a resort is considered a contract. As with all contracts, it’s important to read the fine print.

At the time of your reservation, you are asked to agree to the resort’s policies for booking and visiting, but when you’re traveling outside the U.S., it’s imperative that you be careful before signing your guest registration card. For example, the reservation request for a major resort in St. Lucia includes the clause that “all rates and conditions are subject to change without notice”.

While the above is considered a relatively common policy, contracts also include more serious conditions that may make it hard for you to protect your rights if you have an accident. Under the forum selection clause, if you choose to bring a law suit, many vacation destinations claim that you must do so in their country (outside the US). This implies more than just traveling back to a given island paradise for a court date. It also means that you must follow, not U.S. laws and procedures, but the other country’s. Sometimes, these laws prohibit contingency fee contracts (a good example is the Bahamas where contingency contracts are not allowed), and some require significant bonds to be posted in order to bring a personal injury claim. Many countries make it very complicated to bring personal injury suits in the first place.

In some instances the traveler does not even see this forum selection clause until they have already traveled thousand country. Other resorts, have reservation websites that when travel is booked, send s a link to their website, and somewhere buried in its multi-page website is a Terms and Condition section with language similar to the following (which was taken from the Atlantis Terms & Conditions section of their internet site):

During guest registration ... you will be asked to sign a form agreeing to the following terms related to any claims you may have as a result of your stay at the resort: "I agree that any claim I may have against Atlantis, Ocean Club, or any of their officers, directors, employees or related or affiliated companies,....... resulting from any events occurring in The Bahamas shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, and further, irrevocably agree to the Supreme Court of The Bahamas as the exclusive venue for any such proceedings whatsoever. The foregoing shall apply to all persons accompanying me, and I represent that I have the authority to sign this document on their behalf.

So why sign away your rights? Why not just avoid the issue altogether? If only it were so simple. The problem with the forum selection clause is that it is often not shown to travelers before they arrive at the destination. Once you are at the resort, you must agree to their terms in order to stay there. Therefore, unless you want to be stranded in paradise looking for a Super 8 Motel equivalent so you don’t have to pitch a tent on the beach, you’ll probably agree to sign what the resort asks you to sign. To avoid this kind of problem, find out the resort’s policies before you leave home. Find out if there is a forum selection clause, and if so, ask where the agreed forum is. If there are legal problems during your visit, this location will be the site of any necessary litigation.

If you are planning to travel, be careful that you know what you are signing. Actually, be careful because in some instances, you don't even have to sign- the person who checks you in obligates everyone within his/her travel group (see the last sentence in the forum selection clause from Atlantis). If you need help and want to be advised of your rights, consult an attorney who is familiar with forum selection and can help you understand the agreement you are making with the resort. It would be great not to have to worry about this because the likelihood of injury is so remote, but unfortunately accidents and injuries can happen to people while they are traveling. It would be a shame if someone was seriously injured because of a resort's negligence, but they couldn't recover simply because they had to litigate outside the US and they either couldn't afford the bond, couldn't find a contingency lawyer, or could not withstand the traveling back to the country where they were hurt.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

A Family's Liability- when a family is negligent, does the liability extend down the family chain?

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:24:03 GMT

On July 26^th 2009, Diane Schuler loaded her 2 children and three nieces into her car and hit the road, returning home to Long Island after a weekend of camping. This was 9:30 in the morning. By 1:30 in the afternoon, Schuler, her nieces, one of her children, and three men from another vehicle were dead; killed in a head-on collision after Schuler drove for almost two miles the wrong way down the Taconic Parkway. The most recent toxicology reports from Schuler’s autopsy suggest that at the time of her death she had extremely high blood alcohol levels and had recently smoked marijuana. At this time, prosecutors have declined to file criminal charges, saying that “Diane Schuler died in the crash and the charges died with her.”

In the wake of this tragedy, the families of the three men killed are considering filing a variety of civil suits. They have publically, through the media, condemned her and her family members and said the civil suits are the only way to enforce justice is served. This piece is just a brief examination of what sort of wrongful death suits might be filed, and under what legal theories. The following discussion will assume that Ms. Schuler was in fact drunk at the time of the accident.

Most wrongful death suits are filed under a negligence theory, and this matter will probably not be an exception. Simply put, negligence means that the defendant had a duty toward the plaintiffs to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing injury, defendant failed to take those precautions, and the plaintiffs were actually injured as a result. In the current matter, it seems fairly clear that Diane Schuler was negligent. We all know that driving while drunk is dangerous. Reasonable people, therefore avoid doing it. The more interesting question is who can be sued.

If Schuler was negligent, her estate can be sued. Potentially the company insuring the car she was driving can be sued. The car was actually owned by, Warren Hance, Schuler’s brother, so he might potentially have been liable. This last theory is known as the doctrine of negligent entrustment. It means that if the plaintiff can show that Hance knew, or should have known that his sister was drunk, that Hance may have been negligent in allowing her to drive his car. At this time it does not appear that Schuler had begun drinking before she began driving, so this last theory is unlikely to be a winner.

Schuler’s autopsy indicated that she had ingested at least 10 shots of vodka and had high levels of THC, a metabolite of marijuana, in her bloodstream. This sort of binge drinking is often indicative of a long-term substance abuse problem and attorneys for the families of the three men killed have suggested that Schuler’s family must surely have known of any such problem. If this is so, the question becomes, were those family members negligent in allowing Schuler to drive that day, and should the families of those killed be allowed to recover from them?

This is a question that doesn’t appear to have been previously litigated, and ultimately the answer will come down to how far we, as a society, think duty should be extended. We have laws that hold sellers of liquor responsible for harm caused by their customers, but we don’t generally hold social hosts responsible for damage done by their drunken guests.

If Diane Schuler did have a substance abuse problem, which her family denies, how closely related would a family member need to be in order to be held legally responsible for her behavior? Her husband, surely, but who else? Three completely innocent people are dead here, and their families should receive restitution, to the extent that is possible. However, as a society we need to decide just how comfortable we would be if we personally were held responsible for the actions of our families.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Why Link Medical Malpractice Reform With Healthcare Reform? Does not make sense.

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:20:48 GMT

For the past few months, the one public policy that has been on every American's mind is health care reform. It seems like everyone has their own, unique opinion on the state of our country's health care system and how to best reform it, if reform is even necessary.

If you even begin to do some research on the subject, though, you find that there are a lot of red herrings in the health care debate, and it is very easy to be swayed by biased information that serves a particular interest group.

Take, for instance, the argument for litigation reform. Many doctors and insurance companies claim that the rising health care costs in America are caused by rampant medical malpractice claims by people who want to "get rich quick" off of the medical system, and by the subsequent need for doctors to perform "defensive medicine", wherein they perform unnecessary tests to cover themselves in case their patient decides to sue them for negligence. If we were to believe the people who support caps on awards in malpractice cases, all we would have to do to ensure quality, affordable universal health care is stop rewarding the countless individuals who rob the medical system of millions of dollars in rewards for petty injuries. Stories like the McDonald's customer who spilled coffee on her lap and supposedly won rewards of $2.7 million do not help the case that malpractice reform is a red herring in the health care debate. (It is worth knowing that the case of Liebeck vs. McDonald's is a bit more complicated than the story known by most people, and the woman's rewards were not as ridiculous as many have made them seem and in fact she ended up with very little money despite that the McDonald's store that she sued had several earlier similar instances of burning coffee which had caused injuries to customers).

So, is medical malpractice reform the solution to our health care problem? Not according to several prominent economists. Take, for instance, the opinion of Amitabh Chandra, a well-respected Harvard economist:

“Medical malpractice dollars are a red herring,” Chandra said in a telephone interview. “No serious economist thinks that saving money in med mal is the way to improve productivity in the system. There’s so many other sources of inefficiency.”

The results of a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show that medical malpractice cases make up only 2% of the country's health care spending, and "defensive medicine" only accounts for 5-9%. These numbers hardly reflect a significant source of spending in our health care system.

Proving this point even further, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that even if states were to lower malpractice costs by 25-30%, health care costs would only be lowered about 0.4%, and there would be an equally negligible effect on health care insurance premiums.

The real cost of health care is outlined very clearly on the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation website, which finds the causes of rising health care to be:

Prescription drugs and technology – Spending on prescription drugs and new medical technologies has been cited as the primary contributor to the increase in overall health spending. Some analysts state that the availability of more expensive, state-of-the-art drugs and technological services fuels health care spending not only because the development costs of these products must be recouped by industry but also because they generate consumer demand for more intense, costly services even if they are not necessarily cost-effective.

Chronic disease – The nature of health care in the U.S. has changed dramatically over the past century with longer life spans and greater prevalence of chronic illnesses. This has placed tremendous demands on the health care system, particularly an increased need for treatment of ongoing illnesses and long-term care services such as nursing homes; it is estimated that health care costs for chronic disease treatment account for over 75% of national health expenditures.

Aging of the population – Health expenses rise with age and as the baby boomers are now in their middle years, some say that caring for this growing population has raised costs. This trend will continue as the baby boomers will begin qualifying for Medicare in 2011 and many of the costs are shifted to the public sector. However, experts agree that aging of the population contributes minimally to the high growth rate of health care spending.

Administrative costs – It is estimated that at least 7% of health care expenditures are for administrative costs (e.g. marketing, billing) and this portion is much lower in the Medicare program (<2%), which is operated by the federal government. Some argue that the mixed public-private system creates overhead costs and large profits that are fueling health care spending.

The facts are clear: medical malpractice claims are not a significant contributor to rising health care costs, and capping rewards in malpractice cases would not make health care more affordable. They make up less than 1% of total health care costs. 1%! If anything, capping rewards for malpractice cases is dangerous, because it means that doctors are held less accountable for their mistakes, and that patients who need compensation for wrongful pain, injury, or death will not be able to receive the justice they are due. It also means that the states supplement the medical care and treatment of the terribly injured person who cannot afford their ongoing care. What caps mean s we pay for doctor's negligence while insurance companies collecting premiums are given a pass. How does this make sense to anyone? If it doesn't make sense to you, I would hope you stay away from linking tort reform with any discussion on health care reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Florida Governor vetoes Legislative Bill that gave State Farm clearance to charge higher fees than all other regulated insurance companies

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:02:07 GMT

In 1348 Europe was devastated by the Black Plague (now thought to have been bubonic plague, or Yersinia pestis). It killed somewhere between thirty and sixty percent of the population of Europe. One of the many effects of that demographic tragedy was an enormous reduction in the number of working age men. As we might expect, those workers who remained were much in demand, and expected higher wages as a result. While this would have been delightful for the workers and their families, it would also have meant higher costs for employers.

The response to this, from the nobility of England, was the Ordinance of Labourers of 1349. It essentially attempted to cap the wages of working men at what they had been prior to the plague. Let’s cut to the chase and simply note that this attempt was an abject failure, with both workers and employers ignoring it. When this proved ineffective, the English parliament responded with the Statute of Labourers, enacted in 1351. Presumably the nobility felt that the peasantry would respond better to a differently named law. They did not.

So why would anyone begin a blog post ostensibly about legislative attempts to alter insurance pricing in Florida with some dry-as-dust account of strange legal things that happened in England almost seven hundred years ago? Because it illustrates beautifully two points that I’d like to make. First, the folks with the powers to make laws make laws that benefit themselves. Second, more important than anything else, that laws have consequences, regardless of the intent of the legislators.

Typically, when prices are viewed as unfair we attempt to control them by enacting laws that keep prices low or high. Anti-gouging statutes are an example of the former, farm price supports and minimum wage laws are examples of the latter. In Florida for example, it can be extremely expensive to obtain homeowners insurance. Its the primary complaint I hear from friends who are struggling to support their home expenses within their current salaries.

The required homeowners insurance, windstorm insurance and often flood insurance, has been unpopular with homeowners in Florida and in some instances, caused wage earners to be left out of the satisfying experience of homeownership. In response to the unhappiness of their constituents, the Florida legislature has passed laws controlling the prices insurance companies are allowed to charge in Florida. It is called a State protection- and its necessary to protect Florida's families, who are typically less sophisticated than a huge insurance giant, and frankly, it is an obligation of each state. These regulations, these protections, are fantastic; the will of the people has triumphed. So why are Floridians not playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey and wearing lampshades on their heads?

Because over the last several months, one particular insurance firm, State Farm, has been lobbying hard to be allowed to raise its rates and to not have any responsibility about price fixing or reporting. State Farms claims that its Florida rates simply aren’t high enough to continue operations in Florida.

According to it's own website, "State Farm Bank is a nontraditional financial institution and does not have branch offices. The bulk of direct customer interaction and product assistance is provided by State Farm® agents, augmented by a telephone call center, mail and the Internet. As of December 31, 2005, the Bank held $12 billion in total assets."

Earlier this year the Florida legislature agreed, and passed a law allowing State Farm to increase its prices by almost fifty percent. On June 24 of this year however, Florida governor Charlie Crist vetoed that law. State Farm is now threatening to stop offering any property insurance in the state of Florida. Can this be described as retaliatory? Absolutely. So who is wearing the pants in Florida? The Government, elected officials as the protector of it's constituents, or insurance companies? WHO HAS THE POWER and WHY DO Florida Legislators excuse, even vote for insurance companies to gouge the people who put those same Legislators in business? It wasn't always like this. There was a day in Florida, during the 1970s and 1980s when the Florida Legislator acted with far more responsibility to its citizens.

Presumably there is some price point below which an insurance company cannot go if it wishes to remain in business. Is State Farm currently at that price point? I’m not qualified to have an opinion on that matter. Probably the legislature has a regulatory board staffed with experts in the business of insurance. A question then, is where does one go to find experts in a particular business because the general public, friends like mine, all have the same opinion, the rates are already prohibiting hard working people from owning homes.

Traditionally one of the main answers has been, rates get set by the regulated industry itself. This is convenient for industry, as it allows them to essentially choose the staff of the agencies which are supposed to limit it. It is also extremely convenient for legislators, as saves them from having to learn any bothersome details, it is far easier to determine the preference of a small group of lobbyists than the desire of the whole electorate, and industry can generally be relied on to pony up massive sums of cash come reelection time.

Most voters in Florida have more pressing things to do than monitor every thing their legislature does. This is in fact, the very point of representative democracy. Industry however, doesn’t need to monitor everything, only those matters which directly affect their bottom line. Moreover, industry has enough resources that they can dedicate money and manpower directly to monitoring just the small number of issues they care about. Insurance pricing is a matter of secondary concern to the voters, but of primary interest to insurance companies. Further, the benefits of any change in pricing are very small for any individual voter, but in the aggregate they are enormous for insurance companies.

In economist’s jargon this is a situation where the costs are diffused but the benefits are concentrated. When this occurs, companies have every incentive to take over the very agencies in charge of regulating them. This dilemma is known as regulatory capture, and has been a serious problem at least since the 1880s, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was created to regulate railroad rates.

There are really only two possible explanations for State Farm’s actions in Florida. First, if State Farm is to be believed in their claim, then they are lying to potential investors and the world by posting contradictory information on their own website. If State Farm really cannot make enough money under the old pricing structure to continue doing business in Florida, then hey, they can't. I suppose like when I can't afford a pair of shoes I really want, it just means I don't get them. If they can't afford it, they don't don't it, right?. Or, maybe State Farm is simply running a bluff in order to better their bottom line. And the Florida Legislators that voted "yes" on the Bill that proposed to allow State Farm's prices to go unregulated are getting some hell of a bonus, whether directly or in soft money, but be certain they are getting something in exchange for selling out the people that they count on to vote them into office.

Which is the correct explanation? It’s difficult to say, but to his credit, and certainly against much political pressure from his own party, Governor Crist vetoed the State Farm bill and vetoed their unregulated price increases. Now, it's time to remember who has the power after all and let's think about asking State Farm to leave Florida all together finally sending a message to insurance companies that while they are entitled to succeed and profit in our state, they cannot do it by gouging the citizens. Now the questions is what message to send those legislators that actually voted "yes" and passed this bill. What message do we send them?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Air France Jet Missing over the Atlantic- 220 expected to be found dead

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:48:28 GMT

As of 10 A.M. this morning, the Air France jet carrying 228 people, had gone missing over the Atlantic. Reports of electric failure were the biggest concern, and some opined that the jet was struck by lightning. If this plane went down, it will be one if the worst airline disasters in history. Sadly, the Air France plane is thought to have crashed already.

Yahoo News reports: French Ecology Minister Jean-Louis Borloo confirmed the plane had probably had some kind of accident as a hijacking had been ruled out.

"There's nothing on Spanish radar, nothing on Moroccan radar, nothing on French radar. We can seriously envisage the worst," Borloo said.

The minister told AFP there were "powerful" tropical storms in the zone. "It is the kind of jet made to handle this kind of circumstance but there must have been a build up of circumstances."

The flight had left Rio de Janeiro at 7 P.M. and was headed to Paris, the report of an error message coming in approximately four hours into the flight. Nothing has been heard since. The threat of lightning and weather is not one that air travelers are used to worrying about. Very few plane crashes are related to such conditions. This would certainly be the first of this magnitude.

Citing MSNBC, Bill Voss, president and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation in Alexandria, Va. said "lightning issues have been considered since the beginning of aviation. They were far more prevalent when aircraft operated at low altitudes. They are less common now since it's easier to avoid thunderstorms."

More often, plane crashes are due to pilot error or negligent maintenance of equipment. In this case, neither have been suggested to have occurred. Still, as always, an extensive investigation will be conducted once the plane is found and the black box recovered.

In the meantime, all assurances have been that this is not a hostage situation. As I watch the news this morning, that was my first fear and I imagine I am not alone in that reaction after September 11.

The world is watching now, and hopefully news of the plane’s whereabouts will be reported soon.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Airline Companies: Beware of Public Perception. The Public is Watching, Waiting, All Eyes are on You. It’s No Time to Make a Mistake.

Robert Parks — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:38:07 GMT

As I scan the latest news articles and Google alerts, there seems to an influx of stories focused on air travel safety. Could it be the media playing on the devastating Air France Flight 447 – only 50 bodies found, minimal debris recovered and still the French submarine searches for the Black Box beacon signals, which will expire within the week leaving the truth under the ocean.

One story that caught my eye was posted on eTurboNews Federal Aviation Administration administrator Randy Babbit, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and reps from the airline business met in Washington, D.C. to discuss finding ways for airlines to voluntarily make flying safer.

What are they proposing? It was suggested that the airlines create a manifesto to reassure travelers that “airlines are doing all they can to ensure pilots are beyond prepared to fly passengers to their destinations, and to help more senior pilots mentor those with less experience.”

Babbitt told airline companies today he expects them to do complete background checks on pilots before hiring them to fly passengers -- including getting permission from pilots to access all of their training records.

And the news continues. This weekend I noticed an article in Bloomberg.com about a new satellite system that will provide more detailed weather information for pilots. According to the story, this system has been under development for four years by the FAA and other counterparts around the globe – the satellite-based upgrade will provide real time climate images and data to the cockpit so the pilots can see a storm miles before they reach it.

In the U.S., the proposed technology is called NextGen, for Next Generation Air Transportation System, and is estimated to cost the government as much as $22 billion to develop, according to the FAA. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast link, being built by a team led by ITT Corp., is slated to be operational by 2013, according to the FAA Web site. ITT, based in White Plains, New York, is a manufacturer of engineering products and communications systems.

An upgrade to aircraft technology is a hot topic, but so are the pilots that fly the friendly skies. Take the unfortunate mid-flight death of 60-year old pilot Craig Lenell. The Continental Airlines Flight 61 was traveling from Brussels to Newark, NJ when Mr. Lenell suffered a heart attack - the co-pilots took control of the flight with no awareness from the passengers.

This could now lead to questions regarding the qualification of older pilots flying commercial aircraft, but let’s not forget pilot Chesley B. Sullenburger III, 57, who landed the plane in the Hudson River saving the lives of all passengers. Regardless, should there be a limit on the age for pilots flying commercial aircraft? According to the pilot’s wife, Mr. Lenell was in perfect health and had no prior history of heart conditions and never missed his twice-a-year physicals.

Millions of people put their trust in the airlines they choose everyday. Accidents happen. Mistakes are made. But public perception is the key and unfortunately there is no price that will bring back a loved one killed in an air disaster. When the cause is a manufacturing defect, a known danger, a situation that is avoidable, that is when people start to get mad. Too early to feel certain that this is what happened on Air France Flight 447, but I’ve been doing aviation work for 45 years, and folks, the writing is on the wall already.

Finally, the latest in airline crash news: Air France is offering a first advance on compensation for families that lost loved ones – 17,500 euro. For those who don’t have a calculator for a brain, like me, that equals just under $24,000 USD. I wonder if they ask for a release with that. What is your guess?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Parks

Are Airlines Safe? Or Are There A Whole Lot of Plane Crashes Going On?

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:58:03 GMT

Within just a few short months we all experienced the Military fighter plane that crashed into a home, the Hudson crash, and more recently, the tragic Colgan Air/Continental Airline's Flight 3407. The back to back media coverage has raised some serious concerns about the safety of commercial air travel. It’s a series of questions that need answers, and sadly, are linked to the down turn in the economy.

It used to be that commercial travel was not only an elegant way to travel, but it was safe. Statistically, airplanes have always been considered safer. The National Travel Safety Board (“NTSB”) keeps records on all commercial plane accidents, regardless of fatalities.

With cut backs in funding and decreased revenues, airlines have cut their staff, their maintenance programs and their inspections. Some airlines have lowered inspections to only those required by the FAA. The cutbacks are showing in the reported crash numbers. While airlines are bound to exercise due care and protect their passengers from injury, the reports of frequent plane crashes is not a coincidence.

The crash of Buffalo’s Flight 3407, which killed 50 people, was originally blamed on ice on the wings. More recently the NTSB Report became available, and its bad news. Pilot fatigue and pilot error (mostly because of lack of training) were the central causes of the crash. Rebecca Shaw, the co-pilot, was paid under $16,000, which has startled Congressional members after hearing testimony of the quality of airline training in commuter type airlines.

USA TODAY reports:

The role of regional airlines has grown. Once considered industry runts, they are now joined at the hip with the big airlines. People who buy a ticket on a major airline often find themselves on a regional carrier for some part of a domestic trip. Passengers often don't even realize they're traveling on two airlines.

Regional airlines account for half of all domestic departures and about one-quarter of the passengers. They are the only scheduled service to about 440 communities.

Witnesses at National Transportation Safety Board hearings this past week said it's possible that many passengers on Flight 3407 the night of Feb. 12 didn't know the plane and its flight crew belonged not to Continental, but Colgan Air of Manassas, Va.

The twin-engine turboprop experienced an aerodynamic stall as it neared Buffalo Niagara International Airport before plunging into a house. All 49 people aboard and a man in the house were killed. Testimony and documents indicate the captain, Marvin Renslow, and co-pilot Rebecca Shaw made a series of critical errors.

NTSB investigators calculated Shaw was paid just over $16,000. Colgan officials testified that captains such as Renslow earn about $55,000 a year. The company later said Shaw's salary was $23,900 and that captains earn about $67,000.

Pilot pay is usually based on the size of the aircraft and a pilot's experience. But the workload and flight schedules at regional airlines are often more demanding than at a major airline, where the planes are larger and make longer but less frequent trips, said Scott Johns, a former Northwest Airlines pilot and air crash investigator.

The President of the Regional Airline association was interviewed, Roger Cohen, and he denied any suggestion that pilots’ inadequate training and experience could be linked to safety. That gives us aviation attorneys some pause.

Whether it’s coincidence, media sensationalism, or simply the “new era” in Washington politics, Congress is finally going to take a look at standards of regional airlines. Congress was already reviewing commercial aircraft standards. Let’s hope Congress takes this seriously. But just in case, like so many other avoidable situations and dangers before, the trial lawyers will be waiting in the wings to hold the industry responsible should they act with disregard to human life.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

When a fit parent's judgment isn't good enough

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:48:40 GMT

Christopher Jones hit the ground at Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park
near Okeechobee just before his all-terrain vehicle landed on top of
him. The 14-year-old died moments later from his injuries.

Six years later, the incident has turned into much more than a family
tragedy. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in December that
Christopher’s father, Bobby, didn’t have the right to sign a release
and waiver of liability to allow his son to operate the ATV that day.

The court ruled in deciding the case of Kirton v. Fields that “a
parent does not have the authority to execute a pre-injury release on
behalf of a minor child when the release involves participation in a
commercial activity.” A main point in the ruling was that by signing
the release the sports park was absolved of responsibility.

Parents act on behalf of their children in nearly every way possible
deciding what food to feed them, what kind of education they receive
and often their religious values. Now a precedent has been set in
Florida that a parent doesn’t have the right to sign a waiver to allow
their child to participate in commercial activities such as shooting
sports, rodeos, farm tours and all other activities where minor
releases are required for participation.

This year, however, Rep. Mike Horner introduced House Bill 363
designed to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Kirton v. Fields.
Though the legislation died on the Unfinished Business Calendar on May
2, it brings up a few key issues, including that of liability. And if
parents can no longer sign off a waiver, how much will it jeopardize
their children’s ability to participate in certain activities. Will
businesses simply close their operations to minors? They’re
interesting question to pose.

In its ruling, the court made the point that “It cannot be presumed
that a parent who has decided to voluntarily risk a minor child’s
physical wellbeing is acting in the child’s best interest.”
It continued: “Therefore, when a parent decides to execute a
pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child, the parent is not
protecting the welfare of the child, but is instead protecting the
interests of the activity provider.”
(http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc07-1739.pdf)

But according to a House of Representatives staff analysis, the
Supreme Court’s rationale “focuses exclusively on risks associated
with engaging in such activities, and does not acknowledge any
parental or legislative role in weighing the risks of engaging in an
activity against the possible greater benefits to the child for
engaging in such activities notwithstanding the estimated level of
risk.” (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h0363b.CJCP.doc&DocumentType=Analysis&BillNumber=0363&Session=2009)

The analysis correctly argues that the Supreme Court’s decision was
made without a constitutional or statutory source of authority, and
that the ruling thus was very subjective.

So what are the limits of a fit parent's judgment? The debate likely
won’t end with the recent decision. According to Rep. Horner’s bill
and a dissenting opinion in the Kirton case by Justice Charles Wells,
there is support for the Legislature to end up the final voice in the
matter. At least that way, the state’s current and future parents can
have a say in their role as guardians of their children.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Computers Don’t Make Better Decisions Than Humans: New Discoveries From Air France Wreckage As Body Parts Are Found

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:58:04 GMT

It has been approximately two weeks since Air France Flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, and there are still more questions then answers as the search continues for the one device that could illuminate the truth of what happened that fateful night: the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder.

According to The Christian Science Monitor, which gives a detailed update of Flight 447 and Airbus, the examination of the 49 bodies found indicate that the plane broke into pieces, probably splitting in the middle, while airborne.

Body parts are now being found and examined. They tell their own story. According to the an Associate Press Report posted two hours ago, "autopsies revealed fractures in the legs, hips and arms of Air France disaster victims. Experts said those injuries — and the large pieces of wreckage pulled from the Atlantic — strongly suggest the plane broke up in the air."

Many are still critical of the aircraft itself. It has been reported that Air France has replaced the airspeed censors – known as Pilot tubes – on its entire fleet of Airbus A330 and A340 aircraft; the A330 is considered the most automated plane in the air today. Because the airspeed censors may have been iced over due to the weather, causing erratic airspeed readings to the plane’s computers, this has drawn quite a bit of attention. Whether or not this caused the crash is still unconfirmed. Probably the greatest controversy among experts is the idea that this plane, a relatively “newer” model among carriers, is more electronically dependent than a plane ought to be. This particular model actually blocks the pilots out if electrical switch is down or hit, essentially taking over. There is no recourse for pilots onboard – in essence no manual override. The scare is computers don’t have the judgment of humans, obviously, but in a situation such as this, having the cognizant ability to make decisions based on instinct, rather than a model that is comprised of statistical data is beneficial.

According to Airbus’ CEO Tom Enders, who was defending the aircraft earlier this week: "The AIRBUS record is very, very impressive," he said. "(They have) more than 16 million flight hours, more than 3 million flights and this is so far one of the safest commercial aircraft built. We are supporting the investigation as much as we can and we very much hope that the recorders will be found soon, so that we find out what really happened," Enders said.

Despite the theories and new evidence of body parts found, until the Brazilian military ships, the French submarine, and the two Dutch ships locate that desolate ping beacon miles under the ocean, the fate of Airbus Flight 447 may remain a mystery.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte