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 05.17.13 Aero-TV-- CLICK HERE! ** HD iPad-Friendly Version -- AIRBORNE 05.17.13 **

** AIRBORNE 05.14.13 Aero-TV-- CLICK HERE! ** HD iPad-Friendly Version -- AIRBORNE 05.14.13 **

** AIRBORNE 04.01.13 SPECIAL EDITION of Aero-TV-- CLICK HERE! ** HD iPad-Friendly Version -- AIRBORNE 04.01.13 SPECIAL EDITION **

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

Airborne 05.17.13: X-47B Carrier Launch, New CAF Base, Space Oddity... For Real

Also: Wanna Buy A Control Tower?, SAC 7-35 Airdata Computer, Remembering Frank Beagle, Exp 35 Astros Drop In, 777X Team Named, AF Academy Grads Will Get Their Flyover! The X-47B Un>[...]

Cirrus Chute Deployment Fails Over Texas, Pilot Still Makes Safe Landing

A 2001 SR22, With A REPACKED CAPS Chute, Experiences Rocket Firing But NO Chute Deploy You know you're having a bad day when a flight goes so bad that you feel you must resort to u>[...]

A4A Supports Competitive Impact Review Of CBP Preclearance Facility Agreements

Says Meehan Amendment Passage Further Highlights Growing Concerns On Capitol Hill Over Misguided Abu Dhabi Agreement U.S. airline trade organization Airlines for America (A4A) appl>[...]

AD: Spectrolab Nightsun XP Searchlight

AD NUMBER: 2013-10-01 PRODUCT: Certain Spectrolab Nightsun XP Searchlight Assembly (searchlight) installed on, but not limited to Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and Model AW139>[...]

AD: Slingsby Sailplanes Ltd. Sailplanes

AD NUMBER: 2013-09-09 PRODUCT: All Slingsby Sailplanes Ltd. Models Dart T.51, Dart T.51/17, and Dart T.51/17R sailplanes>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2013 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC