P000451
Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:11 AM
I am astonished at the dissatisfaction of potential beneficiaries of this
fund. As a trial attorney, I find it hard to believe that many potential
beneficiaries will be better off after the time and cost of litigation, as
well as the uncertainty of the outcome, if they pursue suit against the
airlines. To assume a timely victory which will pay more after attorneys'
fees and cost of litigation is to assume an awful lot. Successful suit will
take years, and where will the victims be when they receive any financial
benefit of suit? From their comments about their present financial status,
it sounds as though many will have long since put out on the street.
I really don't understand the reluctance of anyone except those who are
blessed to be beneficiary of enormous life insurance benefits. If a large
number sued, even unsuccessfully, would the airlines survive at all, much
less survive if they ended up with a few large judgments against them?
And who is advising these people? What if a plaintiff could prove without
question negligence in airline security? Is a jury going to find it was
foreseeable that terrorists would use the planes as suicide bombs to blow up
the WTC or Pentagon? And, even if that, would a jury then find
foreseeability in the total collapse of several buildings and the consequent
injury and death to people throughout the buildings and emergency crews and
bystanders?
And who will be the jurors--many poor or unemployed people or wealthy ones
who do not think hundreds of thousands or dollars is a fantasy like Santa?
I defended a major international company in one case of absolute negligence.
One juror thought the multiple injuries and surgeries entitled the plaintiff
to $500.00 and one thought $300,000.00, but the other 10 found no negligence
in order to give no damages because they thought the plaintiff was
overplaying his hand and was just greedy. Isn't that just as likely as a
big judgement many years down the road for most of the potential plaintiffs?
I cannot imagine anyone having anything but the greatest compassion for all
the victims and their losses. But, is it possible to get a jury without
members who have had their own devastating losses without benefit of a deep
pocket defendant or life insurance. In less than a year, I've lost four
family members and one close friend, all 55 or younger, to unexpected death.
All had children. None had significant assets or significant life
insurance. My husband had a lot of life insurance, but just in the months
since he died, he would have paid that much toward our family. This is just
life for almost every person in this country at one time or another. When
you lose a breadwinner unexpectedly, you don't get to maintain the lifestyle
to which you've become accustomed except in that rare case where you have a
deep pocket tortfeasor and a strong case of liability plus causation and
foreseeability. I understand why trial lawyers are against this--they need
only one good hit to be set. But who is advising the potential plaintiffs.
Do they have any idea how lucky they are to get an offer like this?
Except for the fact that we'd probably lose our airlines, I almost wish
everyone would sue. Then the millions wouldn't be coming out of the
taxpayers' pockets, at least not directly and all at once. I bet 90% would
not end up with what they are now being offered. And wouldn't this fund
look sensible and fair and even generous then?
I certainly wish I had $250,000.00 plus $50,000.00 for our son plus loss of
my husband's earning capacity from my husband's death, and that my sister
had $250,000.00 and loss of earning capacity for the loss of my
brother-in-law and $50,000.00 for each of his children, and that there were
$250,000.00 for my brother-in-law from the death of my sister-in-law and
$50,000.00 for each of her children, and that the families of my cousin and
good friend had their loss of earning capacity and $250,000.00 plus
$50,000.00 per child.
It is absolutely true that $250,000.00 or $50,000.00 or any other dollar
figure cannot compensate for the loss of a loved one. And God knows, most
of us never see anything approaching those kinds of amounts when we lose
one. Why should the taxpayers pay anything if nothing is acceptable?
I heard the fund administrator say he agrees that the victims are not being
greedy. Okay. Then, what is it? Was it not only a matter of months ago
they expected to have nothing other than what their loved ones left them and
the hope of some of the emergency funds unless they pursued for years at
enormous emotional cost and won a law suit against the airlines? What am I
missing here? I don't get it.
Individual Comment