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

Bolen Gives Congress a Rare Thumbs-Up

Aviation Governance Secured...At Least For a While The National Business Aviation Association similarly applauded the passage of the FAA's recent reauthorization, contentedly recou>[...]

The SportPlane Resource Guide RETURNS!!!!

Emphasis On Growing The Future of Aviation Through Concentration on 'AFFORDABLE FLYERS' It's been a number of years since the Latest Edition of Jim Campbell's HUGE SportPlane Resou>[...]

Buying Sprees Continue: Textron eAviation Takes On Amazilia Aerospace

Amazilia Aerospace GmbH, Develops Digital Flight Control, Flight Guidance And Vehicle Management Systems Textron eAviation has acquired substantially all the assets of Amazilia Aer>[...]

Hawker 4000 Bizjets Gain Nav System, Data Link STC

Honeywell's Primus Brings New Tools and Niceties for Hawker Operators Hawker 4000 business jet operators have a new installation on the table, now that the FAA has granted an STC f>[...]

Echodyne Gets BVLOS Waiver for AiRanger Aircraft

Company Celebrates Niche-but-Important Advancement in Industry Standards Echodyne has announced full integration of its proprietary 'EchoFlight' radar into the e American Aerospace>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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