Well this is kind of dark…
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?
Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.