Flight MH370: Lawsuits Against Boeing and Malaysian Air

Our hearts go out to the families who have endured this tortuous process and who are left to wonder why this tragedy happened. As the world waits with baited breath to learn what happened to Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370, a period of grieving will be followed up with some likely legal action. Boeing is a legal target here and the small handful of U.S. citizens aboard the flight provide a nexus to legal action against Boeing in the U.S.  This becomes a legal chess game concerning jurisdiction. Boeing will surely maneuver in the chess match. One such approach would be to quickly settle with the families of these U.S. citizens. Doing so breaks the nexus and provides Boeing with a means to eliminate non-U.S. citizens legal actions in the U.S.

There will come a time when the families will wish to take action with the assistance of a law firm that is adept at products liability, mass torts, and aviation issues. With Boeing here in Washington, it's likely that the plaintiffs and defendants will seek law firms based out of Seattle.

We don't know what happened with that flight. At least not yet. But we know it should not have happened, that's for sure.  Here at SGB, we handle product liability legal matters in Washington. We know that for the families involved the pain must be overwhelming.  We pray for them to have the strength to get though this time of despair.

NFL Mass Settlement Update

U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody denied preliminary approval of a $765 million settlement of NFL concussion claims. 

 http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10292549/judge-rejects-preliminary-approval-765-million-nfl-settlement-concussion-case

Judge Brody fears that the settlement may not be enough to cover 20,000 retired players. This is a refreshing amount of skepticism being exhibited by the Court. The Court will no doubt want to also take a close look at how the figures were calculated, including the claim for $100 million in attorney fees.  

Many former NFL players had expressed concern that the settlement wasn't enough: to that end, more transparency can be nothing but beneficial. This is a step closer to ensuring that there's fair compensation for these injured former professional athletes.

So why are we discussing this news item here on the Washington Product Liability Blog?  Well, it's important for us to discuss this timely topic for a number of reasons. First, this is a mass injury litigation, something we cover on this blog and something that our law firm Schroeter Goldmark and Bender handles. Second, although the lawsuit here is between the NFL and former players, there's a product element at play here: Are football helmets sufficient to protect players from the types of violent hits the game allows today? The answer is that they are obviously not. Football is a sport near and dear to my heart - I played it in high school and college.  But it's going to have to change - the rules will need to be changed, the equipment may need to evolve, and the culture will need to change.

We'll be turning at a later date to the Frontline program that has recently come out, League of Denial.  

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10292549/judge-rejects-preliminary-approval-765-million-nfl-settlement-concussion-case

For now, we should all celebrate the good caution that the Court is taking here to make sure that this settlement is sufficient, is transparent, and is appropriate.  

Failure to Warn: Your Food May Be A Dangerous Product

The people of Washington have spoken, for now at least: They have rejected I-522, the proposal that requires labeling of genetically modified foods. Trailing 45 to 55 percent, it looks lost. A vote is a vote and we must respect the outcome, but given the issue here and the amount of money spent by big business opposing I—522, it raises the question whether we the people have really spoken. Do Washingtonians not want to know what is in their food?  Or were citizens overcome by huge agribusiness companies that outspent the proponents by nearly 3-to-1 making this the most expensive initiative campaign in state history. Here is the heartbreaking part: according to the Seattle Times, of the $22,000,000 in donations to the campaign, only $550 was contributed from state residents. Good grief. The ability to exert influence in important matters like this one is far from even-handed: the playing field is tilted and the outcome reflects as much.

Labeling on our food is every bit as important for public safety as labeling is for dangerous products. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) may be dangerous and they may be benign. But we have a right to know what goes in our food, so that we can make our own choices about health, safety and what we serve our families. The proponents of I-522, while disappointed, are proud of the campaign and the awareness it raised; and they are thankfully not giving up the ghost. Future efforts to provide better, complete food labeling are in our future.

In better news, some companies are dropping the phony “natural” claim. Even the Wall Street Journal–long a foe of people exercising their rights to civil justice—had to admit that the changes are coming due to legal action challenging the “naturalness” of all manner of foods from ice cream to potato chips. Likewise, massive meat manufacturer Cargill has finally decided to respond to mounting public pressure to label its mystery meat products that contain the infamous “pink slime” that it puts in ground beef packages. According to the  New York Times, Cargill announced that it will label the “finely texturized meat product” in its meat packages on the day voters in Washington decided I-522. Coincidence?  Probably not. Cargill’s pink slime—in the form of stacks of green cash—oozed into Washington. According to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission’s database, Cargill spent over  $140,000 to defeat I-522. If they will tell us about pink slime, but not GMO, what do they not want us to know?

Ski Resort Lawsuit Provides Valuable Lesson To All Litigants

Lawyers can probably never overeducate their client. Sometimes a client can unwittingly harm his own case. Take for example this fella  from New Jersey. He had just filed a lawsuit against a ski resort for injuries he suffered. But then in a subsequent ski season he obtained a new season pass. The pass contained a waiver of liability for all claims against Mountain Creek. By signing the waiver, the litigant not only signed away future claims, but he also signed away his pending lawsuit. This was a gift to the ski mountain: the case was swiftly dismissed and later affirmed on appeal.

I assign no fault to any of the attorneys involved. But this sure does serve as a friendly reminder that lawyers can never overeducate their clients about calling the lawyer before taking any action or making any decision that could in any way be related to their lawsuit. The defense lawyer here claimed that he believed plaintiff's claims to constitute a very valuable case. It may well have been until the client signed the lawusuit away without reading what he was signing or getting some legal help before taking any action related to skiing. If he had signed up for a season pass at any other mountain, he'd still have his lawsuit.

Ski resort litigation is tough enough (I know: the team at my law firm of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender is one of only a small handful of firms in Washington State that handle ski and snowboard lawsuits). The ski industry ordinarily does a very good job of lobbying for laws that protect its industry in ways that would surprise the general public. It's too bad that this lawsuit fell to the wayside. Instead of the lawsuit leading to further ways to protect skiers, this one may have principally lead to the mountain finding yet another way to protect itself.

Ski Resort Lawsuit Provides Valuable Lesson To All Litigants

Lawyers can probably never overeducate their client. Sometimes a client can unwittingly harm his own case. Take for example this fella  from New Jersey. He had just filed a lawsuit against a ski resort for injuries he suffered. But then in a subsequent ski season he obtained a new season pass. The pass contained a waiver of liability for all claims against Mountain Creek. By signing the waiver, the litigant not only signed away future claims, but he also signed away his pending lawsuit. This was a gift to the ski mountain: the case was swiftly dismissed and later affirmed on appeal.

I assign no fault to any of the attorneys involved. But this sure does serve as a friendly reminder that lawyers can never overeducate their clients about calling the lawyer before taking any action or making any decision that could in any way be related to their lawsuit. The defense lawyer here claimed that he believed plaintiff's claims to constitute a very valuable case. It may well have been until the client signed the lawusuit away without reading what he was signing or getting some legal help before taking any action related to skiing. If he had signed up for a season pass at any other mountain, he'd still have his lawsuit.

Ski resort litigation is tough enough (I know: the team at my law firm of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender is one of only a small handful of firms in Washington State that handle ski and snowboard lawsuits). The ski industry ordinarily does a very good job of lobbying for laws that protect its industry in ways that would surprise the general public. It's too bad that this lawsuit fell to the wayside. Instead of the lawsuit leading to further ways to protect skiers, this one may have principally lead to the mountain finding yet another way to protect itself.