On January 29, 2025, we saw a devastating accident near Washington National Airport (DCA), whereby an Army Sikorsky UH-60 helicopter collided with an American Eagle CRJ-700, leading to 67 fatalities. This is the first crash of a US airliner since 2009, and it’s just horribly tragic.
As you’d expect, airline crashes typically lead to lawsuits, and the first such suit from the family members of one of the deceased has just been filed. What I find interesting is which parties are being sued, since it’s not necessarily what you’d expect.
In this post:
Family of American Eagle crash victim file federal lawsuit
On Wednesday, September 24, 2025, the family members of one of the people killed in January’s American Eagle crash have filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Washington. The lawsuit alleges “wrongful death and survival claims, jointly and severally,” against American Airlines, PSA Airlines (the regional subsidiary operating the flight), the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Army.
The lawsuit requests a trial by jury, and monetary damages from the airline and the government, with compensation to be decided by a judge. It’s of course not surprising to see a lawsuit filed over a plane crash, as that’s pretty standard.
What I find interesting here is which parties are being sued. While a final report on the crash hasn’t yet been released, we know that a military helicopter crashed into the American Eagle regional jet while it was on approach, and the American Eagle pilots were following instructions. There’s no indication that the American Eagle crew did anything wrong, which contributed materially to this outcome.
The lawsuit alleges that the crash could’ve been prevented if the Army and FAA had better managed the airspace around the airport, given the number of close calls we’ve seen there in recent times. As the attorney for the family explained:
“Knowing that there was massive congestion and these number of near-misses, we turned to the FAA and their responsibility to properly provide air traffic control that was not fully provided and properly provided on that evening.”
Fair enough, right? But here’s where it gets interesting. The lawsuit also blames American, as the airline exposed its customers to the dangers of the airport, and continued to seek more gates there, despite having knowledge of the number of near misses in the airspace. As the attorney explained:
“Operators of a motor vehicle can’t run through a red light. Operators of a commercial aircraft cannot run through yellow lights, and they ran blatantly for years, many red lights here by allowing these planes to operate in the navigable space at DCA, knowing that there was massive congestion, that there was a massive intersection between military traffic regarding runways that were unique and required special training that they failed to provide to their pilots, the complaint against American is set out in a way that emphasizes their responsibility.”
For a different perspective, the widow of one of the victims shared the following everyday example of how American is responsible in this situation:
“The lack of attention on the airlines – it’s been a point of frustration for me. If you look at the 15,000-plus near misses over a few years that the NTSB reported in their preliminary report and you look at the volume of flights that American Airlines has in and out of that airport every single day, I kind of liken it to imagine you put your child on a school bus every day and three times a week, the cement truck runs a stop sign and almost crashed into the bus.”
“After three years, the bus drivers start complaining and say, ‘hey, this isn’t really safe.’ But the bus keeps going and going. When that day comes when a cement truck hits your kid and your kid dies, don’t you blame the bus company a little bit for the fact that they had this ongoing risk and didn’t do anything about it?”
I’m curious what comes of this lawsuit against American
When I first saw mention of American being sued for the accident, I was skeptical. While I still think it’s a stretch, I get the point being made, and I think it’s not totally unreasonable. I guess it comes down to hindsight being 20/20, plus differing opinions as to which party is responsible for airspace safety (the government vs. corporations).
Of course in recent years, it feels like we’ve heard about endless close calls at airports, and sometimes it’s hard to know whether there has actually been a material uptick, or if the way we consume media has simply changed. Either way, there’s no doubt that the airspace around DCA has been way too congested, and this was an accident waiting to happen.
That being said, should the individual airline operators be accountable for that congestion having fatal consequences, or should the government, which decides on traffic levels, be responsible? I certainly think the government has a lot more responsibility here, as you’re not going to find a for-profit airline that chooses not to fly to a certain airport because it’s maybe a little less safe than another.
For that matter, how could one argue that airlines aren’t operating with the highest possible margins of safety, when the entire country didn’t see a single major commercial plane crash in 16 years? I think that shows an incredible commitment to safety.
I suppose the occasional lawsuit along these lines is a price of doing business. So I’m curious what ends up coming of this. Though quite honestly, we’ll probably never know, as I suspect this will be settled out of court.
Bottom line
Family members of one of the victims of January’s tragic American Eagle crash at Washington National Airport have just filed a lawsuit. They’re not just suing the FAA and the Army, but they’re also suing the airline.
I think the logic for suing the FAA and the Army is obvious — the FAA was responsible for the level of congestion, and the Army helicopter crashed into the American Eagle plane. However, the angle for suing American is a little more questionable, with the lawsuit alleging that American was being reckless by flying into such congested airspace with so many near misses.
What do you make of this lawsuit, and to what extent do you think the airline is responsible here?
If they’re gonna succeed in a lawsuit, they’re gonna have to show that conducting an airlines business is so inherently dangerous that the crash rises to a strict liability tort. If they’re arguing AA is negligent here, they’re probably gonna lose that argument given that the pilots were following ATC orders and are bound by FAA regulations to do so unless they get permission from ATC to deviate or in an emergency situation. They obviously...
If they’re gonna succeed in a lawsuit, they’re gonna have to show that conducting an airlines business is so inherently dangerous that the crash rises to a strict liability tort. If they’re arguing AA is negligent here, they’re probably gonna lose that argument given that the pilots were following ATC orders and are bound by FAA regulations to do so unless they get permission from ATC to deviate or in an emergency situation. They obviously didn’t see the helicopter (and wouldn’t have been expected to, given the flight path of the helicopter), so any negligence argument is gonna fail.
If the plaintiffs can make a compelling enough argument that AA bears responsibility for the crash simply by the nature of conducting a business that is inherently dangerous, the plaintiffs could win their strict liability tort lawsuit. Unfortunately I have no legal background, so idk if that’s even remotely possible or if there’s any sort of precedence to suggest to the contrary.
This is what lawyers (and cops, for that matter) do - they throw a whole lot of BS at the wall, and hope some of it sticks. Fortunately judges are well aware of this strategy, as most of them used it when they were attorneys.
The arguments presented here against aa is quite understandable and I actually didn't think like them before reading and now I feel like aa should be accountable at least to a certain degree. I assume many juries feel the same way. In any case I think it is wiser to include all parties involved in the initial suit but some will be dropped in the process ..
The claim against AA comes down to an issue of duty. Does AA have a duty not to operate from airports that have high risk factors, but are open for commercial traffic and approved by FAA? If you answer that question “yes”, then you would not only close DCA to all commercial traffic, but also SAN, MDW, LGA, BUR, LAX, and a lot of other airports that have high risk factors. I personally think the...
The claim against AA comes down to an issue of duty. Does AA have a duty not to operate from airports that have high risk factors, but are open for commercial traffic and approved by FAA? If you answer that question “yes”, then you would not only close DCA to all commercial traffic, but also SAN, MDW, LGA, BUR, LAX, and a lot of other airports that have high risk factors. I personally think the answer to this is clearly “no”, and AA will likely be dismissed at an early stage. If this kind of duty existed in the US legal system, then drivers would be liable for accidents they didn’t cause because they chose a crowded, congested highway.
If you're flying in controlled airspace and obeying ATC directions to the letter, it's reasonable to assume that ATC is keeping other aircraft out of your way. As you say, there are very many airports around the world that would have to close immediately if judged by that standard. Insanely busy airspace around cities like NY and London would have to close completely. It's simply an unviable claim.
Until you are asked to sit on the jury, don't make up your mind that AA was not at least 1% at fault, because you don't know whether the Trump administration lawyers are going to use that as a defense. The American legal system often requires all the parties potentially at fault to be called into court, because some of them are likely to be pointing fingers at others, anyway.
Could the AA pilots...
Until you are asked to sit on the jury, don't make up your mind that AA was not at least 1% at fault, because you don't know whether the Trump administration lawyers are going to use that as a defense. The American legal system often requires all the parties potentially at fault to be called into court, because some of them are likely to be pointing fingers at others, anyway.
Could the AA pilots have rejected the last-minute change of runway, telling ATC that "our company doesn't allow such diversions and the last ten times you asked for that procedure a go-around was allowed" ? Until the final report is issued -- and maybe, not even then -- we don't know all the facts. That is the purpose of the trial.
Filing a lawsuit and winning a lawsuit are 2 different things. You sue ALL parties involved and then you see who settles or who wants to fight and you adjust accordingly. AA may not want to pursue this and they settle for 50 mil. Who knows.
I know this blog has an international audience, and I know many countries are not as litigious as the United States.
May I submit that the volume of litigation in the United States is a good thing.
For lawyers.
Yes, AA should be sued. It was their plane that crashed. If they feel they should be dismissed from the lawsuit, they can argue that in court and, if they prevail, the suit can continue against the federal defendants. Not sure why the plaintiffs wouldn't be expected to initially bring suit against all parties involved, including AA.
Because the layperson who doesn't know the first thing about law in the United States will fixate on the fact the AA plane was hit (passive voice, implying to the layperson absolution of responsibility).
All comments from non-attorneys should be summarily ignored.
In a modern civil society, we do want operators to assess comprehensively the risks of their operation. If this suit causes American or any other airline to say hey wait - let's rethink our operations at this airport because it's congested and risky - that benefits the public at large.