Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Blood-Clot Claims Against Airlines | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.13.24

Airborne-NextGen-05.14.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.15.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers-05.16.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.17.24

Sat, Oct 06, 2007

Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Blood-Clot Claims Against Airlines

Question Of Possible Causes Still Undetermined

A federal appeals court has handed American Airlines, Continental Airlines and other carriers a courtroom victory. A federal appeals panel in San Francisco, CA, upheld a lower court's dismissal of passenger claims that airlines failed to adequately warn them about the risk of blood clots.

Bloomberg reports the appeals court also agreed any airline's duty under state law to warn passengers about the risk of developing blood clots is preempted by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. But, the issue of whether lack of legroom is the cause -- and if airlines and seatmakers should be held accountable -- is still up in the air.

The three-judge appeals panel also ordered a lower-court judge to reconsider related claims that the airlines' planes provide inadequate legroom, causing the clots. In addition, it sent back to the lower court for further "factual development" the question of whether seating configurations are unsafe.

Clem Trischler, of Pietragallo Bosick & Gordon in Pittsburgh, a lawyer for the airlines, says the panel wants the lower court to examine the issue of whether having to remove seats would have a negative economic impact on the airlines.

"Once we make a factual record, I'm certain we'll be able to make that showing," he told

The airlines contend that reconfiguring seating would require a decrease in the number of passengers an airplane could carry, which would mean higher fares and an indirect regulation of ticket prices not allowed under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Airline passengers filed separate suits against airlines including Continental, American and El Al Israel Airlines. In addition, the passengers file suits against Boeing, the world's second-largest maker of commercial planes, and seatmaker Weber Aircraft.

Those defendants previously won their cases, based on arguments in court papers.

FMI: www.pbandg.com

Advertisement

More News

Classic Aero-TV: Remembering Bob Hoover

From 2023 (YouTube Version): Legacy of a Titan Robert (Bob) Anderson Hoover was a fighter pilot, test pilot, flight instructor, and air show superstar. More so, Bob Hoover was an i>[...]

ANN FAQ: Follow Us On Instagram!

Get The Latest in Aviation News NOW on Instagram Are you on Instagram yet? It's been around for a few years, quietly picking up traction mostly thanks to everybody's new obsession >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.15.24)

Aero Linx: B-52H Stratofortress The B-52H Stratofortress is a long-range, heavy bomber that can perform a variety of missions. The bomber is capable of flying at high subsonic spee>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.15.24):Altimeter Setting

Altimeter Setting The barometric pressure reading used to adjust a pressure altimeter for variations in existing atmospheric pressure or to the standard altimeter setting (29.92).>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.16.24)

"Knowing that we play an active part in bettering people's lives is extremely rewarding. My team and I are very thankful for the opportunity to be here and to help in any way we ca>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC