Boeing 777 Disappears Near Vietnam

[WWWTT]

The time frame would depend on the country you live in. Here in Canada or the USA it may be 8 years, who knows what it is for Malaysia.

I'm curious as to how China will react or what kind of actions this case will result in!

I can see them using this case to beef up their military/surveillance defence perimeters etc.

WWWTT

[guyser]

As to liability and insurance payments, I wonder how much time would be required to declare all those on board to have perished without any physical evidence. I believe that it takes about 8 years for a missing person to be declared legally dead so would the same parameters apply to this case?

In many cases it is 7 years, (Italy is 20) IN China it is 2 years

That said however there can be cases where a court will step in and override the time limit (Sept 11-issued within days) and order the death cert to be issued without delay.

But that complicates the distribution of the will afterwards, especially when it is planeload, not one or two people. The laws of the country they lived in will have jurisdiction over life ins payments and the laws there will be invoked. In this case China

Once it is established that the person(s) is dead then the cause has to be established as to liability. The liability would be very different in case of a bomb or pilot error or pilot suicide or mechanical failure or design flaw or misdirection by air controllers or ...

There will be plenty of finger pointing. This tragedy will be in the news for many years.

The cause of the crash will (hopefully)be determined by civil aviation bodies, but the liability will not be , thats for a court to decide.

COntrary to what someone else posted incorretly re; payments , above (slept in a Holiday Inn I suppose) , the airline is covered under the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency. If the airline is found at fault for an accident, the Montreal Convention stipulates that it is liable for up to 113,100 special "drawing rights" per passenger, a value established by the International Monetary Fund. The value changes regularly, and for now equals about $170,000 per passenger in the USA.

If the plane is not found, then that could very well be the extent of any payouts to the surviving family members. Because if not found there can be no determination of cause, without cause they have very little to argue on or against.

Couple that with all the component manufacturers, plane, its systems, engine makers and so on fighting back.

Also most courts in the USA (nor anywhere else) do NOT hold airlines to strict liability for passengers but for damage caused by the plane crashing they do and will. (plane hits house)

As for how much liability they have, Malaysian Airlines have plenty to cover things, trust accounts are already in place and some payouts for emerg stuff has been issued. Again though, the airline will only have to cover minimal dollars unless a court case (and plane found of course)can prove otherwise. Not to mention that the manufacturer of components for the plane will stack their liability limits on top of the Malay Ailrines limit. Pretty safe to say they will stay solvent going forward

If the plane is never found , this----> I wouldn't be surprised if the lawsuit and payout breaks a world record from this incident....wont happen, not even close.

If found and negligence isnt proven, it wont happen then either

[WWWTT]

Here's the link that the poster above got his info from!

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVri4tUVTMR0A7WMXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMG04Z2o2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1397106233/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2fen%2ftravel_and_recreation%2fair_travel%2fairline_liability.html/RK=0/RS=F7vWiXdct53dTONyaO6eAZl_laI-

This is from the link:

There is no financial limit on the liability of an EU airline for damages sustained by you in the event of death, wounding or any other bodily injury

Now apparently as we can see from the link that the laws from country to country vary and any country signatory to the Montreal convention have the same rules as any EU airline.

I find it insulting to the intelligence of the members here to just tell just dictate, rest assured, I'll provide the link where I got my info from, so that you have access to the same info as I do and you can make your own decision!

WWWTT

[guyser]

Here's the link that the poster above got his info from!

Except I didnt. But thanks for playing anyhow.

This is from the link:

There is no financial limit on the liability of an EU airline for damages sustained by you in the event of death, wounding or any other bodily injury

See my post above, $170g is the limit.

No one said they cant sue, but without a plane , not likley to do anything,

Now apparently as we can see from the link that the laws from country to country vary and any country signatory to the Montreal convention have the same rules as any EU airline.

Yup. $170G per passenger !

Not hard to follow along. Think of your baggage being lost, they only pay $200 or something like that. A courier? $2 per pound.

Dont courier gold unless you get a rider.

I find it insulting to the intelligence of the members here to just tell just dictate, rest assured, I'll provide the link where I got my info from, so that you have access to the same info as I do and you can make your own decision!

WWWTT

Most of your links are broken when I click on them. Edited April 9, 2014 by Guyser2

[WWWTT]

Except I didnt. But thanks for playing anyhow.

See my post above, $170g is the limit.

No one said they cant sue, but without a plane , not likley to do anything,

Yup. $170G per passenger !

Not hard to follow along. Think of your baggage being lost, they only pay $200 or something like that. A courier? $2 per pound.

Dont courier gold unless you get a rider.

Most of your links are broken when I click on them.

Doesn't matter where you got your info. But I will provide the info for all the members here so that they have the same access . I never suggested any different, only a lawsuit. And yes only if there is a plane wreckage.(but who knows in a lawsuit)

But I believe we can both agree that this is a very unusual case, so I'm going to guess that something unpredictable can happen out of this.

And ya I don't know what happens to those links that I provided that don't work anymore. I always double check after posting. Some are still good. Any suggestions?

WWWTT

[guyser]

I never suggested any different, only a lawsuit. And yes only if there is a plane wreckage.(but who knows in a lawsuit)

Whats this then..."There is no financial limit on the liability of a..? "

..., so I'm going to guess that something unpredictable can happen out of this.

You can think that, I dont. Any lawsuit will be normal SOP going forward. NO plane, likely no suit. Edited April 9, 2014 by Guyser2

[Rue]

Whats this then..."There is no financial limit on the liability of a..? "

You can think that, I dont. Any lawsuit will be normal SOP going forward. NO plane, likely no suit.

Guyser I am not sure what you are referring to but no plane is needed for a law suit.

[guyser]

Guyser I am not sure what you are referring to but no plane is needed for a law suit.

I suppose not

But then again, there will be nothing to argue in court w/out a plane so...there has to be a plane for a suit to have any success.

[Rue]

As to liability and insurance payments, I wonder how much time would be required to declare all those on board to have perished without any physical evidence. I believe that it takes about 8 years for a missing person to be declared legally dead so would the same parameters apply to this case? Once it is established that the person(s) is dead then the cause has to be established as to liability. The liability would be very different in case of a bomb or pilot error or pilot suicide or mechanical failure or design flaw or misdirection by air controllers or ...

There will be plenty of finger pointing. This tragedy will be in the news for many years.

You would be dead on Big Guy in some jurisdictions yes 8 years. It differs depending on the nation and state or province. I do think they can get around any limitation period for presumption of death on the grounds of public policy. There is precedent for it once a nation declares a plane lost forever at sea.

However it is I concede a complex legal issue depending on jurisdiction. Also keep in mind insurance companies can and do waive the limitation period where they are satisfied there is no fraud involved. They can do that on humanitarian grounds and many have where the disaster is public as opposed to something confusing like the disappearance of just one person under suspicious reasons especially where they claim to have committed suicide after comitting a crime.

I think a law suit would take anywhere from 1 to 6 years even if it gets going next year which is pressing it early. They do drag on.

[Rue]

I suppose not

But then again, there will be nothing to argue in court w/out a plane so...there has to be a plane for a suit to have any success.

Here is what I mean. If the insurance companies waive the time limitation and need for evidence you do not need a plane. In a case where a sovereign state declares a plane lost at sea, insurance companies will not push it. You don't need actual proof of death in such instances. Judicial notice by a Judge can be taken. There is precedent for that. Would it be easier to make a case with the plane yes. Is it necessary no.

[guyser]

Here is what I mean. If the insurance companies waive the time limitation and need for evidence you do not need a plane.

In this case then no law suit....right?

In a case where a sovereign state declares a plane lost at sea, insurance companies will not push it. You don't need actual proof of death in such instances. Judicial notice by a Judge can be taken.

And?.....there will be no law suit

[WWWTT]

Whats this then..."There is no financial limit on the liability of a..? "

You can think that, I dont. Any lawsuit will be normal SOP going forward. NO plane, likely no suit.

No limitation for a lawsuit.

I think Rue makes a good argument.

After all, the passenger are in the care of the airline, and I would at least put a huge responsibility on them for safely transporting me from point a to point b.

Never showing up to point b is a huge failure!

Also the possibility of a huge out of court settlement.

Well see what happens.

WWWTT

[guyser]

No limitation for a lawsuit.

I think Rue makes a good argument.

After all, the passenger are in the care of the airline, and I would at least put a huge responsibility on them for safely transporting me from point a to point b.

Never showing up to point b is a huge failure!

Also the possibility of a huge out of court settlement.

Well see what happens.

WWWTT

They can sue, no one deines that.

But without a plane nothing much will come of it.

The airline wont have any significant liability if the plane is not found, apart from the agreement all operate under.

[WWWTT]

They can sue, no one deines that.

But without a plane nothing much will come of it.

The airline wont have any significant liability if the plane is not found, apart from the agreement all operate under.

After seeing some of the settlements from the US, I wouldn't bet on anything!

Civil courts don't need to meet as high of standard/scrutiny as federal/provincial in Canada. Same in the US.

We saw that with the OJ Simpson case!

Not sure with that part of Asia and their justice systems.

I'm only making guesses from what I remember of past cases here and this case can be moving into unchartered territory.

WWWTT

[jbg]

We saw that with the OJ Simpson case!

I don't think OJ was guilty. I may be only white Jewish person who thinks that but it's what I think.

[WWWTT]

I don't think OJ was guilty. I may be only white Jewish person who thinks that but it's what I think.

Just using the case as an example of where a higher stat court found him innocent, but the civil court found him liable using lower standards.

Just an example to the missing Malaysian flight, not trying to open any new debate.

WWWTT

[guyser]

Just using the case as an example of where a higher stat court found him innocent, but the civil court found him liable using lower standards.

Just an example to the missing Malaysian flight, not trying to open any new debate.

WWWTT

No court found him innocent for starters.

And the civil case, if we are to compare them....remove the body, remove the cause of death, remove any idea of how a missing person is dead or has died and then compare. The what court case ? There wouldnt be one.

OJ wouldnt even have gone to court.

And thats the comparison you need.

[WWWTT]

No court found him innocent for starters.

And the civil case, if we are to compare them....remove the body, remove the cause of death, remove any idea of how a missing person is dead or has died and then compare. The what court case ? There wouldnt be one.

OJ wouldnt even have gone to court.

And thats the comparison you need.

Superior court of Los Angeles county found OJ not guilty (same as innocent), but after lawsuit cases went through, he was found liable for the deaths (whatever that means) All I know is that he had to pay out in the end after the civil action.

Keep in mind that not fulfilling your end of the bargain is reasonable reason that you're going to lose a case and have to pay out. Causing damages is another no brainer. Malaysia airlines was supposed to safely and comfortably transport the passengers from point A to point B. They failed to do that. When this goes to court, what is air Malaysia going to say, "hey we don't know where the plane went, don't know where the passengers are, so all we're paying is what we are committed to through the Montreal convention? We're not responsible because the plaintiff can't prove we're responsible for our lost plane?" Guaranteed that if a judge hears that, he/she is going to rip into the airliner. I can see if the plane was shot down without provocation by a military jet/missle. But that's about it.

WWWTT

[guyser]

Superior court of Los Angeles county found OJ not guilty (same as innocent),

No, it isnt the same, not even close. But never mind that anyway.

Keep in mind that not fulfilling your end of the bargain is reasonable reason that you're going to lose a case and have to pay out. Causing damages is another no brainer. Malaysia airlines was supposed to safely and comfortably transport the passengers from point A to point B. They failed to do that. When this goes to court, what is air Malaysia going to say, "hey we don't know where the plane went, don't know where the passengers are, so all we're paying is what we are committed to through the Montreal convention? We're not responsible because the plaintiff can't prove we're responsible for our lost plane?" Guaranteed that if a judge hears that, he/she is going to rip into the airliner. I can see if the plane was shot down without provocation by a military jet/missle. But that's about it.

WWWTT

Thats just an emotional angle youre coming from.

Malaysia Airlines may have no culpability in this disaster, and they may have. Until the plane is found or evidence is established that says what went wrong, they cannot be held liable above and beyond what the convention says (for the most part)

A Judge will keep emotions in check and not allow it to tain the proceeding and of course follow the law. IF a Judge 'is going to rip into the airliner' without any evidence of what happened it will be appealed and with a gopod chance of being overturned.

[WWWTT]

Just read this link that sheds some new light on what the Malaysian military knew and how they reacted.

https://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=At3gmkCa4eZw_ju49ZcC6FPedPV_;_ylu=X3oDMTQ0cGY4dDY5BGFjdANpbWFnZQRpbnRsA2NhBGl0YwMwBGxwb3MDMQRtY29kZQNBZ0JUU1hZUUFGeS9FQUJqblJBQU1JRVFBSE1uBG1wb3MDMQRwa2cDaWQtMTkwNjQxOARwb3MDMQRzZWMDdGQtZmVhBHRlc3QDBHZlcnNpb24DbGVnbwR3b2UDNDQzMQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTE5cHE0NjFxBGludGwDY2EEbGFuZwNlbi1jYQRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDcG1o;_ylv=0/SIG=14d8pdhip/EXP=1398533116/**http%3A//ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-malaysia-starts-investigating-confused-initial-response-missing-095014401--sector.html

Looks like that they could end getting sued for their lack of in actions in this as well.

WWWTT

[WestCoastRunner]

I continue to wonder why this plane disappeared and was on no one's radar? Why didn't Malaysia scramble some jets together at the first sign of them going missing? Incompetence?

[On Guard for Thee]

I continue to wonder why this plane disappeared and was on no one's radar? Why didn't Malaysia scramble some jets together at the first sign of them going missing? Incompetence?

That's a question that has lingered on my mind with regard to sending up a fighter or two. Standard opereating procedure. Now I have heard something on CNN that says they actually did (Malay) send up a fighter but couldn't find the 777 precisely due to the lack of radar trace. Incompetence? possibly. It seems it has not been handled well, especially at the start. Maybe more like lack of experience. I stick to my guns that it was a major fault with the ac, possibly in the electrical system, and if they did in fact descend to a very low altitude it could well have been to get out of the way of other traffic. There won't be any other airliners down at 5000 ft and it's a busy corridor. Still so many questions.

[WestCoastRunner]

I stick to my guns that it was a major fault with the ac, possibly in the electrical system, and if they did in fact descend to a very low altitude it could well have been to get out of the way of other traffic. There won't be any other airliners down at 5000 ft and it's a busy corridor. Still so many questions.

Interesting thought but why did they fly around Indonesia?

[On Guard for Thee]

Interesting thought but why did they fly around Indonesia?

Well that's another good question, but what eludes me is the proof that they did fly around Indonesia. What did they discover after 4 weeks or so that determined that? If there's no radar trace, there's no radar trace. Now of course you could say the lack of trace is because they flew around and that's plausible, but I would like to see the timetable with regard to which radars in which locations are up and running and when they're not. The military will not divulge such things for security reasons, which I understand. Maybe it's out there but I haven't seen it, at that time of the night were all the Indonesian radars up and running. And again, if they went low level to get out of traffic, radar is hat is referred to as "line of sight" The further away and the lower you get, the curvature of the earth takes you off the radar screen. It looks like they are about to go to the Bluefin and let it "mow the lawn" and take pics. as the pingr batteries reach the end of shelf life. And again my heart goes out to those left behind.

[WestCoastRunner]

At that time of the night were all the Indonesian radars up and running.

As I understand it, the radar system in that part of the world is terribly lacking so anything is plausible but according to Malaysia, they were able to determine through analysis that it did in fact fly around Indonesia, but they have reported incorrect information in the past as well. It will definitely have an impact on passengers flying in and out of Malaysia for quite sometime, I bet.