Well this is kind of dark…
In this post:
Boeing tries to avoid compensation for crash victim suffering
As just about everyone knows, two Boeing 737 MAXs crashed months apart in 2018 and 2019, leading to 346 people tragically losing their lives. This caused the jet to be grounded globally for an extended period of time. Boeing’s reputation has really suffered since this incident, after all kinds of things have been revealed about the company’s culture, and attempt to trick regulators to get the jet certificated, in order to maximize profits.
As you’d expect, Boeing has been facing litigation regarding the 737 MAX fiasco. The company has resolved investigations by federal prosecutors and securities regulators, and has also settled about three-quarters of the civil claims from the families of victims.
One of the largest outstanding lawsuits involves the families of roughly 80 victims of the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX crash. They’re expected to have a trial in June, and one of the main focuses of this is whether compensation should be available for the suffering that the victims faced.
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Boeing is trying to get out of paying compensation for suffering:
“Boeing attorneys cited an expert who said that the 737 MAX victims died painlessly because the airplane crashed into the ground so fast that their brains didn’t have time to process pain signals from their nervous systems.”
Boeing attorneys say that without sufficient evidence that victims experienced pain and suffering between injuries and death, damages should only be awarded for grief and loss.
Boeing is arguing that discussions of suffering shouldn’t be allowed in court, because it could cause the jury to award plaintiffs an amount that is equivalent to punitive damages. As an attorney wrote in a filing:
“Jurors would inevitably sympathize with testimony about the passengers’ alleged fear of impending death and imagine themselves in the passengers’ shoes.”
What attorneys for the crash victims argue
An attorney representing the families of the crash victims has taken the opposite stance, arguing:
“Passengers undeniably suffered horrific emotional distress, pain and suffering, and physical impact/injury while they endured extreme G-forces, braced for impact, knew the airplane was malfunctioning, and ultimately plummeted nose-down to the ground at terrifying speed.”
An airline pilot who was hired as a witness by the plaintiffs supported this argument:
“It wasn’t long before the progressive loss of control and ultimate dive to the ground would have been not only distressing but terror-inducing to all passengers onboard.”
Boeing has argued that this is speculative, and that damages shouldn’t be awarded for “pre-impact fright and terror.” An expert in human factors and aerospace physiology hired by Boeing countered the above by arguing the following:
“While passengers undoubtedly perceived the flight as scary, humans have a tendency to hold on to hope and not expect the worst. Ultimately, it is impossible to know the subjective experience of each occupant.”
Bottom line
While I can appreciate that there will be a trial and both sides will be heard, this just all seems really, really dark. A plane nosedived into the ground, and Boeing’s defense is literally that the victims didn’t suffer because “humans have a tendency to hold on to hope and not expect the worst?”
I get that Boeing is a publicly traded company, is supposed to maximize profits, and these accidents have already cost the airline a lot. But this whole thing has very strong late stage capitalism vibes…
What do you make of Boeing’s defense regarding the suffering of 737 MAX crash victims?
Boeing is an absolutely vile company.
They shouldve been closed down.
American corporate culture at it's finest. Profits uber allis.
I understand that this is a legal strategy and there are 100s of millions of dollars at stake, after billions have already been list. But the optics of this are absolutely horrendous and completely obliterate any hope of this once great company salvaging their reputation. We were already wondering what kind of people were running Boeing. Now we know they haven’t learned a thing.
Hay que. Ver el documental de Netflix al respecto de estos terroríficos accidentes aéreos ocasionados por la ambición económico de la compañía. Faltaron a la ética en todos los sentidos posibles.
Las sensaciones que las personas tuviero que ser horrorosas ya que, el avión oscilaba entre inclinaciones excesivas hacia el frente y hacia atrás y los intentos de los pilotos de estabilizar la posición de la nave, agravaban más la situación.
Si una...
Hay que. Ver el documental de Netflix al respecto de estos terroríficos accidentes aéreos ocasionados por la ambición económico de la compañía. Faltaron a la ética en todos los sentidos posibles.
Las sensaciones que las personas tuviero que ser horrorosas ya que, el avión oscilaba entre inclinaciones excesivas hacia el frente y hacia atrás y los intentos de los pilotos de estabilizar la posición de la nave, agravaban más la situación.
Si una montaña rusa ( cuyas inclinaciones, bajadas y subidas son previamente diseñadas y estudiadas para no llevar a las personas a un colapso físico y emocional) puede sentirse cómo algo cercano al horror, cómo negar el profundo miedo y las sensaciones horribles físicas que experimentaron los pasajeros con esas posiciones descontroladas del avión.
Es una desfachatez tras otra, asco, asco , asco me da esa compañía....de haber Sido una de las empresas con mayor ética y calidad empresarial en el mundo aeronáutico a lo que son ahora. Una empresa sin prestigio, sin calidad humana, sin cimientos.
Seriously!? While I obviously wasn't on those flights, I'm pretty sure that the passengers did feel something was wrong as the plane pitched up & down, and it's pretty hard to feel calm as you dive towards the ground at ~500kts. Second, Boeing needs a radical change in management. They've been focusing on the bottom line & short-term profits for far too long now resulting in defective and/or poorly-built aircraft.
They need to stop...
Seriously!? While I obviously wasn't on those flights, I'm pretty sure that the passengers did feel something was wrong as the plane pitched up & down, and it's pretty hard to feel calm as you dive towards the ground at ~500kts. Second, Boeing needs a radical change in management. They've been focusing on the bottom line & short-term profits for far too long now resulting in defective and/or poorly-built aircraft.
They need to stop making aircraft to sell & instead make them to fly well.
If I were on that jury and the Boeing lawyer tried to make that case to me I would vote to double the award.
Plane had problem day before. Company dispatched plane following day. They should be held responsible .for accident that should not have happened. Be aware of companies you fly with.
When I pay for a flight, I am not paying for my own death or suffering. I am paying to get from point A to point B, with a potential C, and D. I am also paying to get their safely. I'm 99.9% certain that the majority feels the same. So getting ruffled over the fact that the plan was to release a faulty aircraft carelessly, putting peoples lives at stake, does in fact. Hold...
When I pay for a flight, I am not paying for my own death or suffering. I am paying to get from point A to point B, with a potential C, and D. I am also paying to get their safely. I'm 99.9% certain that the majority feels the same. So getting ruffled over the fact that the plan was to release a faulty aircraft carelessly, putting peoples lives at stake, does in fact. Hold a great case, that should be brought up in court. The guy in charge of boeing should quit taking money showers and take actually responsibility for their wrong doings.
You are paying to get from point A to B. Safety is never what you paid for. It's just implied from the mode of transportation. Paying more to get from A to B doesn't make it safer.
And after your witch hunt, which Boeing will settle with no wrong doings, the most you will get out is a stupid sticker on the side of the airplane that reads:
WARNING: This product contains a design known to the State of California to cause a ground collision or other reproductive harm.
Billion dollar stock buybacks they have no problem with but paying when they knowingly make a faulty product they fight? Make them pay more just for the idea of doing that.
Good ole American capitalism,they knew the planes were defective,put profit over life,now don't want to pay. The last administration made a backroom deal quick and let them off the hook. Bet they didn't let their families fly in those pain. I hope the jury make them pay even more for even trying such a disgusting tactic
How can one of the biggest Airplane manufacturer can even think on advancing with such an absurd theory that Passengers did not suffer, what a shame, this just proves once again and sadly that Boeing's culture is not safety first anymore rather profits at any cost, and that kind of approach has landed Boeing into big trouble, they should be heavily penalized, hopefully the jury will make sure that happens, and why not invite the...
How can one of the biggest Airplane manufacturer can even think on advancing with such an absurd theory that Passengers did not suffer, what a shame, this just proves once again and sadly that Boeing's culture is not safety first anymore rather profits at any cost, and that kind of approach has landed Boeing into big trouble, they should be heavily penalized, hopefully the jury will make sure that happens, and why not invite the Boeing Executives for a training session for a real nose dive at 900km/ per hour so they can stop talking nonsense...
Wow. What a bunch of arses.
Boeing's argument seems rather calloused to me. Those passengers and crew likely were in an extreme state of fright.
Knowing you are going to crash is good. Sudden death is bad. Damages should be higher for sudden death.
The passengers of the Japan Air Lines 747 that crashed into a mountain and suffered prolonged loss of control were able to write farewell notes and even a will.
I had a relative that was in medical (not emotional) distress and said "I am going to die today" and died 5-10 minutes later.
Boeing should not be let off this easy for the MAX disasters. Fine the leadership and restructure them.
What disgusting individuals these lawyers must be to make such horrid comments. Wonder what they would say and do if one of those tragic victims was a friend or relative or child of theirs. And as for the Boeing executives connected in this, they need to hang their heads in shame.
The compensation is for the families that have indeed suffered. Attorneys are billing hourly. Boeing should should just settle. But the insurance companies sometimes won't go there. My sympathy for the families now reliving their pain
Boeing can therefore be asked to prove their claim, beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t believe any jury would.
In addition, I am sure nor will most Boeing employees who naturally cannot discuss the case.
That's not how it works. In America, only the prosecutor in a criminal action has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a civil case and Boeing is the defendant. The burden is on plaintiffs to establish their damages by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal prosecution, which this is not.
This is a civil action, for which the standard is "Preponderance of the Evidence," a liter burden to achieve.
I'll trust Boeing as soon as they stick their executives in charge of the 737MAX project on a plane and let them die "painlessly" in a nosedive.
Since. as a company, they appear to have no moral compass these days, I'd be inclined to include the Board, as well. Pudding meets proof?
This is just sick, totally sick... I get that lawyers are paid to advocate for their clients, but this transgresses from advocacy into vileness. Boeing should be ashamed.
I just replied a French poster regarding the "pain and suffering" insanity.
@Ben "...and attempt to trick regulators to get the jet certificated, in order to maximize profits."
Trick regulators? Where have you seen documentation establishing Boeing's motivation in that regard? Did they rely too much on the FAA's liberal oversight (a system decades in use)? Sure. Did they want to avoid a "new" certification to preclude simulator training for pilots -- yes that was no secret and the airlines themselves wanted that. Did various test pilots/engineers...
@Ben "...and attempt to trick regulators to get the jet certificated, in order to maximize profits."
Trick regulators? Where have you seen documentation establishing Boeing's motivation in that regard? Did they rely too much on the FAA's liberal oversight (a system decades in use)? Sure. Did they want to avoid a "new" certification to preclude simulator training for pilots -- yes that was no secret and the airlines themselves wanted that. Did various test pilots/engineers say stupid and incriminating things, yes they did and still do. Was it a mistake to not highlight MCAS and rely on one pitot tube? In retrospect, of course.
Where was the "trick?"
Well, here's the documentation from the DOJ you were too lazy to spend 2 seconds googling (it was literally the top result) and instead spend way longer jumping to Boeing's defence, without a single ounce of supporting evidence:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/boeing-charged-737-max-fraud-conspiracy-and-agrees-pay-over-25-billion
Reading apparently is not your strength. Where did I defend Boeing??? I cited some of the same points you referred to in the DOJ release. I never said Boeing was innocent of anything. I SPECIFICALLY (maybe this will help your understanding) questioned the term "tricked."
Even the release you cite primarily blames the two test pilots:
"...(i) the misconduct was neither pervasive across the organization, nor undertaken by a large number of employees,...
Reading apparently is not your strength. Where did I defend Boeing??? I cited some of the same points you referred to in the DOJ release. I never said Boeing was innocent of anything. I SPECIFICALLY (maybe this will help your understanding) questioned the term "tricked."
Even the release you cite primarily blames the two test pilots:
"...(i) the misconduct was neither pervasive across the organization, nor undertaken by a large number of employees, nor facilitated by senior management; (ii) although two of Boeing’s 737 MAX Flight Technical Pilots deceived the FAA AEG about MCAS by way of misleading statements, half-truths, and omissions...."
Or did you miss reading that part of the release?
I suppose when someone doesn't even know what "trick" means, it's natural to also accuse others of something they are incapable of doing themselves. Let me find a dictionary for you:
trick
/trik/
noun
1.
a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone.
The CONTEXT for what you quoted is to justify why an "independent compliance monitor" is not necessary, and even then faults representatives of...
I suppose when someone doesn't even know what "trick" means, it's natural to also accuse others of something they are incapable of doing themselves. Let me find a dictionary for you:
trick
/trik/
noun
1.
a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone.
The CONTEXT for what you quoted is to justify why an "independent compliance monitor" is not necessary, and even then faults representatives of Boeing (hence Boeing) for "misleading statements, half-truths, and omissions".
This is after an entire article outlining everything that Boeing has done wrong, starting with omissions and deception, and then delay in co-operating with the investigations. If you ran a simple search for the word "deceive" you'd see exactly what Boeing did to trick the FAA. The 3 preceding paragraphs also clearly outline additional measures imposed on Boeing, including cooperation with the fraud section, remedial measures and over 2.5 billion dollars. Sure doesn't sound like there's any trickery going on there.
Sounds like a lot of wishful interpretation of someone who simply wants to torture fact and testimony to conform to his tidy conspiracy scenario. Area 51 much? This from someone who says he won't fly a MAX until Boeing execs crash in a painful death. Clearly reasonable.
When did I say that? Thanks for demonstrating your lack of reading abilities once again. The statement was in the context of the article, where Boeing claims passengers on the doomed flights "experienced no pain and suffering". In which case, I'll believe it once they've experienced it.
But great job resorting to a bunch of ad hom after demonstrating your complete failure to read.
Of course you didn't say that. You said this:
"I'll trust Boeing as soon as they stick their executives in charge of the 737MAX project on a plane and let them die "painlessly" in a nosedive..."
Context isn't the issue. What kind of idiot says this?
What kind of company, and what kind of lawyer, claims the victims of a plane crash didn't suffer?
Oh I know, the kind who still have idiots like you supporting them because public schooling failed you.
"the misconduct was neither pervasive..."
This is what the prosecutors negotiated away (arguably wrongly) in order to get Boeing to at least admit something and pay USD2.5B.
Boeing wanted that, so much, to reduce liabilities from other people claiming.
That's the downside to the public of plea-bargaining.
The tactics of lawyers representing people who have done deep wrongs don't work on many of us.
But seems to work on people like you, which worries me.
The problem with your comment is that it is callous towards the victims and their loved ones. Your whole comment is in defense of Boeing. Boeing called their own shots to get the Max in the air. They hid documentation and bypassed even their own people's advice. Talk and you're fired was their approach. Then the management told the FAA and the public that the plane was flight worthy TRICKING everyone into believing so.
DISGUSTING BUT NOT SHOCKED BY THIS COLD HEARTED LEGALIZE AND TO KNOW THAT THESE LAWYERS GET A PAYCHECK TO DO THIS EVIL DEED I ONLY WISH KARMIC RETRIBUTION T0 THEM only if they acknowledge that reality
I guess the lawyers have to argue something but yeesh how cringy - how do they sleep at night?
If I was on the jury I would definitely award suffering damages for the passengers- it must have been terrifying to have the plane pitch up and down and then scream into the ground at 500mph+. Boeing is clearly in the wrong and should be penalized heavily for causing these people and their families to suffer IMHO
They probably sleep just fine. If it bothered them that much, they'd have switched careers long ago.
"If I was on the jury I would definitely award suffering damages for the passengers"
With sentiments like this, you'd never be on a jury.
They probably sleep just fine. If it bothered them that much, they'd have switched careers long ago.
That couldn't POSSIBLY be farther from the truth, lol.
Work even a day as a trial attorney, and you'll quickly figure out how many of your colleagues (1) absolutely hate their job, (2) have various longterm plans in motion to alter/leave it. Even with 20yr+ litigators, this is a thing.
I went to one of the top schools...
They probably sleep just fine. If it bothered them that much, they'd have switched careers long ago.
That couldn't POSSIBLY be farther from the truth, lol.
Work even a day as a trial attorney, and you'll quickly figure out how many of your colleagues (1) absolutely hate their job, (2) have various longterm plans in motion to alter/leave it. Even with 20yr+ litigators, this is a thing.
I went to one of the top schools in the country, yet by 4th year out, more than a third of my graduating classmates who were admitted to any bar, were doing something other than legal practice, despite being in vast debt therefor.
I left litigation in my 6th year, and was the best move I'd ever made in my life.
Yes, "late stage capitalism" is the problem here. Unlike middle stage capitalism in the Roman Empire, when the families of victims of chariot crashes were fully compensated for pain and suffering!
It's really too bad the world doesn't run on feelings, like all millennials wish.
Okay boomer.
Wow
Lawyers are terrible people.
Until you need one
They're still terrible if you need them.
Really constructive and helpful take.
This is horrible and evil and disgusting.
Their lives were taken! They were killed strictly because of this. Their families should be unbelievably compensated.
Honestly makes me want to cry at the callousness of this company.
It has taken another tragic crash to know just how much trauma people experience when they are about to die in a crash. I’m talking of the Yeti Airlines crash in January. There, as here, not a single person escaped with their life. And yet, someone had the courage to record the final moments of his life and his co-passengers’. As they descended to their doom outside Pokhara, they were screaming, the last thing they...
It has taken another tragic crash to know just how much trauma people experience when they are about to die in a crash. I’m talking of the Yeti Airlines crash in January. There, as here, not a single person escaped with their life. And yet, someone had the courage to record the final moments of his life and his co-passengers’. As they descended to their doom outside Pokhara, they were screaming, the last thing they did. And those attorneys think that crash victims do not experience trauma and die peacefully?!?!?!
Courage? They were having a good time, and went from completely unaware to dead, in less than 6 seconds.
Tragic. And you can tell that they very much did suffer. But there was no "courage" involved in that, just the circumstance of having a camera on.
@Ben sorry but this article is a really bad take. Boeing isn't attempting to deny compensation, rather they are arguing the premise that there should be ADDITIONAL compensation for the suffering of the passengers because Boeing claims they didn't suffer. Whether that is true or not will have to be argued in court, but to paint Boeing simply as a corporation who's only defense is that the victims didn't suffer is a really shallow view of their argument.
Unless I'm missing something, Ben clearly addresses this point in his post, saying that Boeing is trying to avoid compensation *for suffering*. But yea, it's true, they aren't really contesting that they shouldn't have to pay any compensation.
Fly Boeing! Our planes crash so quickly there's no time to be terrified!
Do we have witnesses, if the passengers really suffered emotional distress? Maybe they enjoyed the ride, while it lasted, experiencing the state of the art cabin experience of the Boeing 737-8 Max. So it’s all hearsay and about what hired “experts” claim. I think that’s Boeing’s thinking here. Disgusting company.
"We should get to pay out less because we killed them, like, reeeally quickly".
I wonder if this legal argument was run by their PR firm before it was bandied about in court.
What do you expect? A lawyers job is to defend their client. Gotta use all the tricks in your bag, even the dirty ones.
Doubt anyone's surprised by this, just disgusted.
False. Dirty tricks = Debarred like Rudy Guiliani.
False. Dirty tricks = Debarred like Rudy Guiliani.
Giuliani has not been disbarred.
New York has temporarily suspended his license to practice there, but didn't disbar him; and a D.C. disciplinary board recommended disbarment last year, but then stopped short of actually doing it.
Crazy.
The “capitalistic” US civil justice system regularly awards hundreds or thousands of times the damages claimants would be entitled to in most other courts in the world, in recent years into the hundreds of millions of dollars on a single death. Working in that environment, Boeing should be entitled to raise any defense the law permits. I don’t know how strong this particular legal defense is, but I’m guessing this is out in the public...
The “capitalistic” US civil justice system regularly awards hundreds or thousands of times the damages claimants would be entitled to in most other courts in the world, in recent years into the hundreds of millions of dollars on a single death. Working in that environment, Boeing should be entitled to raise any defense the law permits. I don’t know how strong this particular legal defense is, but I’m guessing this is out in the public because someone is trying pressure Boeing through the media to drop the defense. That’s actually not cool at all, and “trial in the media” never leads to a fair result.
Boeing is most certainly entitled to raise any defense they desire, but that doesn't mean that any defense they raise isn't deserving of any sort of backlash.
If Boeing believes that the benefits they may obtain from a reduced compensation payout/lawsuit outweighs their current portrayal as a corporation that doesn't care about what passengers went through, they are free to go down that road. But they need to be aware of the consequences they...
Boeing is most certainly entitled to raise any defense they desire, but that doesn't mean that any defense they raise isn't deserving of any sort of backlash.
If Boeing believes that the benefits they may obtain from a reduced compensation payout/lawsuit outweighs their current portrayal as a corporation that doesn't care about what passengers went through, they are free to go down that road. But they need to be aware of the consequences they will have and they have to take up responsibility of your stance.
This is just another (of many) reasons as for why Boeing isn't and bar any radical internal changes, will never be the reputable company it ever was.
There honestly needs to be deep and full investigation into Boeing's practices. The number of issues with that companies products in recent years with catastrophic consequences is unreal. Airbus has had virtually none in that time. There also seems to be a culture of gross negligence in the company.