We have all heard about the lawsuit from the 9/11 attacks by a widow suing as her lawyers "allege that United breached its duty to care for the safety of the passengers on Flight 175" and that her husband "suffered severe fright and terror before dying in the crash" and her family has suffered emotional distress. Damages are unspecified. I cannot place myself in her shoes and truly know no one who died in the attacks. However, I am appauled at this lawsuit and the potential for others to follow. I too, as a US citizen, have been affected by this date.Yes, I understand that emotions are running high, but again we now tread into "we need to blame someone and get compensated monetarily." This lawsuit opens the door for all kinds of "associated" lawsuits to anything attached to the attacks. Heck, let's sue the government because their CIA and FBI were unable to detect the event. Now how about the builders of the WTC for not building the building to with stand an airplane impact! We are the only country that allows liability suits to become astronomical awards and potentially bankrupt a company. This includes the recent ruling on $43 million on Pfizer's Rezulin suit and the new asbestos claims covering a wide range of companies. For example, countries once colonies of the UK have ceiling limits on monetary damages. Compensation is based on actual/documentable impacts...not "What we think the person experienced before dying".No disrespect to anyone impacted by the attacks, but it's time we examine what we are trying to accomplish with such lawsuits. It seems to me we are looking for money to ease our pains...which is very typical of our culture.Mike
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat