Thread: SWA Lawsuit
View Single Post
Old 04-17-2008, 05:52 AM
  #23  
stinsonjr
Gets Weekends Off
 
stinsonjr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 919
Default

Originally Posted by vagabond View Post
Thanks, stinson, for the support. I usually don’t comment anymore on “legal” threads since almost all of them on APC consists of unproductive posts like “all lawyers are scum” or “all lawyers deserve to die,” but I’ll give my two cents to correct some misunderstandings.

First of all, let me say that lawyers are like pilots and doctors and engineers – there are good ones and there are bad ones. It takes only one bad apple to make the rest look bad. Unfortunately, there are lots of bad ones out there. I preside over certain lawyer discipline cases and see more than my fair share of lawyers gone bad. However, it would be inaccurate to say that the plaintiff lawyers in this SWA suit are scum. There has been no evidence that these lawyers went looking for potential plaintiffs, much like personal injury lawyers listen to police scanners for accidents and run out to the accident site with their business cards.

Class action lawsuits are complicated litigation procedural devices, with their own inherent pros and cons, and those filed in federal courts are all governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 which states the following:

Rule 23. Class Actions
(a) Prerequisites.
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
(b) Types of Class Actions.
A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
In other words, lots of hoops to jump through before getting a case certified as a class action. It is true that in many cases, the lawyers get a large fee. That is one of the criticisms of class action suits. Members of the suit end up with small, paltry “awards.”

Now I haven’t seen the SWA suit and everything I know about it comes from the media (and we know how they are sometimes in accuracy and slant). It appears that the passengers are alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft. These are all very common causes of action in a class action lawsuit. They are not claiming that they could have been harmed, but that SWA breached its contract (the “Contract of Carriage”) with them. The contract with passengers say that SWA will fly them to their destinations on aircraft that is in compliance with federal regulations. We now know that the FAA has looked into its maintenance and/or maintenance records and found them wanting.

I just scratched the surface on this topic, but I hope it helps in understanding the basics of a class action lawsuit. If anyone has a more specific question, please send me a PM. When I read that thread of the media quoting a couple of APC posters, I have become wary of getting into details.
Thanks for the thoughtful post Vagabond. Have you, off the top of your head, any knowledge of a class-action suit that was truly useful? My understanding of this is that most class-actions end up with the attorneys making most of the money, with the members of the class making very little - but that is my laymen knowledge and I would welcome being corrected. Also, the actions of Scruggs and Millberg Weiss DO taint the legal profession, at least in the class-action arena, for me - a couple of REALLY bad apples.

Yes, SWA did violate the "Contract of Carriage" perhaps, but the other poster who stated about altitude deviations also makes an excellent point - that is also a violation of the Contract of Carriage. At some point though, common sense should take over in my opinion. If you weren't damaged in any way, and you did in fact arrive at your destination unscathed...where are your economic damages?
stinsonjr is offline