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 06.18.13 Aero-TV-- CLICK HERE! ** HD iPad-Friendly Version -- AIRBORNE 06.18.13 **

** AIRBORNE 06.14.13 Aero-TV-- CLICK HERE! ** HD iPad-Friendly Version -- AIRBORNE 06.14.13**

** 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

Aero-TV: Garmin’s GNC-255 –- Back To Basics

Garmin's New Aviation VHF Radios Early this year, a new series of aviation VHF COM and NAV/COM radios, the GTR and GNC series, was announced by Garmin. As the replacement products >[...]

EADS And Siemens Enter Long-Term Research Partnership

Sign MoU With Diamond Aircraft On Electric Propulsion System EADS and Siemens are entering into a long-term research partnership to introduce new electric propulsion systems that c>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (06.19.13): Ceiling

The heights above the earth's surface of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena that is reported as broken, overcast, or obscuration, and not classified as thin or parti>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (06.19.13)

The Army Aviation Heritage Foundation The Army Aviation Heritage Foundation (AAHF) is a non-profit public educational foundation dedicated to presenting the Army Aviation story to >[...]

Aero-News: Quote Of The Day (06.19.13)

“The serial electric propulsion allows us to design airplanes with totally different characteristics than today. Vertical take-off and high-speed cruise can be realized in a >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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