Continental 1404 Lawsuits
Time for some analysis. First a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor an expert in rare gold coins; however I do hold a private pilot’s license and am familiar with the basic concepts of aviation.
On December 20th a Continental 737 encountered some sort of wind or mechanical phenomenon that is yet to be fully determined by investigations.
Approaching rotation speed the aircraft experienced a sharp swerve, uncorrectable by rudder, and the pilots opted to abort the takeoff before VR – the speed at which takeoff is the only option. The plane then went careening off the runway and into an open field. Everyone managed to escape the plane and all survived. (I’ll remember that next time complaining about DIA’s location far off on the empty prairie. Open fields can serve a good purpose.)
The passengers fled the plane into the cold night, with the pilots’ help everyone exited before one side of the plane caught fire. It was the best possible outcome in this situation. I attribute it to the pilots’ decision, the lack of structures in the path, and luck.
Less than a month later, and many months out from determining the actual cause of the crash, Houston attorney Jason Gibson took on newfound lawsuit buddies Melissa Craft and Emily Pellegrini in order to sue Continental. They are charging the Continental pilots PERSONALLY with recklessness, and claim Continental has the knowledge but is hiding the true reasons for the crash.
Now I wasn’t in the cockpit, so who knows – maybe the pilots were texting their girlfriends and drinking Crantinis during the takeoff roll. However I highly doubt it. More likely that the girls were. There is absolutely no current evidence of pilot error or misconduct.
Here are some quotes from the stories which I found conflicting, interesting, and hilarious:
Melissa Craft and Emily Pellegrini allege in their suit that the pilot “negligently aborted” the flight shortly after it took off on Dec. 20. The eight-page complaint names Continental and pilots David Butler and Chad Levang as co-defendants. The suit does not specify how the aborted takeoff was negligent.
So it was negligent, but they can’t say how. Should the pilots have taken off with a potential control surface problem? (FYI that’s a big one.)
Pellegrini was stuck when she couldn’t open her seatbelt as the plane caught fire. She suffered a back injury and emotional trauma in the crash.
No shit. She was in a plane crash. It was scary. But why not save the lawsuits until a cause is determined?
Without any experience in aeronautics, Pellegrini insists they should have taken off. What makes that part of it interesting is Emily Pellegrini’s quote to the Denver Post a day after the crash. (Here from Fox News:)
Passenger Emily Pellegrini told The Denver Post that as the plane headed down the runway, “It was bumpy, then it was bumpier, then it wasn’t bumpy.”
It was bumpier, then it wasn’t bumpy. This attests to her aviation knowledge, yet she wanted the pilots to continue takeoff. Yikes.
Meanwhile their attorney Jason Gibson offers this insight:
“Continental knows what happened already,” he said. “It’s clear it was not wind shear. No other planes or pilots had any issues that day in the same position. It was pilot error, mechanical issues, or a combination of both, and either way Continental is responsible.”
It doesn’t sound like Jason knows what wind shear is if he’s comparing 1404’s experience to others on THAT DAY. Wind shear is NOT CONSTANT. Hence it can have a rapid and immediate effect on one aircraft, and be gone 20 seconds later. A FULL DAY is a light year in the timeframe of wind shear. Such statements make him sound like a complete hack.
In checking out the Gibson Law Firm website it seems Jason Gibson is also an expert on cases of falling merchandise, dietary supplements, rare coins, and radon gas emitted by granite countertops. So why not add wind shear to the roster of expertise?
Here’s his Continental page begging for clients. (With a non-credited photo and stock image of an ambulance.) His website title page even says “Coin Fraud Attorney.” The girls also claim they are not being fairly compensated for their skis and fine jewelry, so perhaps the selection of Jason Gibson was based on that loss rather their being forced to run into an open field from a smoldering airplane.
Sorry for the personal jabs – but I find it reprehensible to be filing suit AGAINST THE PILOTS that should be praised for saving their lives with their quick decision making. A suit against them involves their family, homes, and personal assets, when again – they haven’t been found at fault.
Back to their claim of “Continental hiding the truth. ” Continental doesn’t handle the investigation, the NTSB does. I’m sure the NTSB can go into whatever Continental file cabinets it wants to, plus they have both black boxes, aerial photos, and the entire airplane. I don’t see this as being some sort of Erin Brockovich conspiracy in which the truth is being buried in the desert. Or under a Houston Megachurch. Why not find out first if it was weather, pilot error, or aircraft maintenance that caused the incident?
How can you have a basis for a lawsuit without a complete and comprehensive knowledge of the actual event? Its despicable. If that’s how the legal system works I fear for the first graders at Houston’s JFK elementary school.
These girls would be well served to research cases in which planes were PAST their takeoff speed with a major problem and didn’t have the option of sledding across an open field. Air France flight 4590 and Air Florida flight 90 come to mind. Staying on the ground probably saved their lives, and they should be grateful.
If compensation is sought it should be taken up with Continental for specific reasons and not generalities. And unless proved to be in error the pilots should be left out of any lawsuits, and hopefully it will be dismissed.
Somewhat related – I do seem to get dizzy when sniffing my granite countertops. Maybe I’ll give Gibson a call…
References:
Fox News 12/21
Denver Post 1/12
Rocky Mountain News 1/13
Houston Chronicle 1/12
Photo from Fox News.
Caleb Cross, Denver, Colorado
I think you meant to say V1 where you said Vr, right? You can abort up to V1, but aborting after that point is generally a bad thing, and Vr comes after (or at the same time as) V1.
Larry’s last blog post..Acai Diet Models Found!
Larry thanks for the correction. Yes that should be V1 – which allowed them to abort before their obligated takeoff.
james’s last blog post..The Lamest Corner of Cherry Creek
Oh my your sarcasm kills me… If we’re going to talk about cluelessness than we can start by naming you… you seem to think you have the right to talk about something you don’t know shit about cause you weren’t there to begin with. SO SHUT YOUR MOUTH. Keep tripping on your own arrogance cocksucker.
Thanks for that – err, well written rebuttal Mark. I’ll ignore the profane personal jab and attempt to engage in a courteous disagreement.
As for “you don’t no shit because you weren’t there.”
It’s obvious I wasn’t there. I never claimed to be. HOWEVER – this lawyer is discrediting wind shear as a potential cause of the accident. His basis for is that “no other pilots experienced wind shear THAT DAY.”
It’s not arrogant or sarcastic to say that statement is 100% inaccurate, nonsensical, and completely laughable as even a partial basis for a claim. It deserves to be mocked.
Do some research on wind shear and let me know what you think of that.
Going after the pilots PERSONALLY for their decisions BEFORE a cause has even been found? It’s not pompous to say that’s just nasty and skankish behavior on the part of the lawyer and the girls
But again, let me know how you disagree regarding the facts.
Thanks for reading.
james’s last blog post..NYC Subway Art
Hey James,
I like your blog.
There are several things that need to be addressed.
First with regard to suing the pilots personally.
In tort law there is a doctrine known as respondeat superior. It basically means that if one is injured by an employee acting within the scope of his employment compensation may be sought against both.
Second, the timeliness of the lawsuit being filed (in that it is being filed before ‘fault’ is determined). Any good lawyer files early and often, if the statute of limitations elapses before the suit is file, no claim. If you don’t include possible causes of action, etc in your initial few pleadings, they cannot be brought up in court. You throw every possible scenario in your initial and ammended complaints and then through the discovery process elements of fact become available. This, combined with the NTSB report is how it is determined if the pilots were drinking appletinis or texting or overly tired or confronted with a mechanical problem or…or…
While the NTSB report is definitely evidence as to who is at ‘fault,’ it is ultimately up for a fact-finder (judge or jury) to decide if it was pilot error (pilot/continental) or something outside the realm of human control. The NTSB report is for the NTSB, to provide information to remedy chronic problems and ensure the air system is safe, it is not to determine fault in tort cases.
Which brings me to the next point. Common carrier (like airlines) are generally strictly liable to passengers when there is an accident. Carriers know this, they carry insurance for that purpose, it is called special-purpose wealth. Continental is no more paying for the destroyed plane as they are for the injuries suffered by any of the passengers, Lloyd’s or one of those guys is.
Yes, this attorney obviously makes his money by capitalizing off of ambulance chasing. BUT, these girls were injured and it is a shame they are going to such a scumbag, but they do deserve to be made whole.
When one purchases an airline ticket they are not consenting to being in an air crash, they are contracting a carrier to take them from point A to point B. This is exactly what Continental agreed to do as well. Instead, they were thrown into a field and set on fire, Continental and its employees violated their contract for WHATEVER reason, be it crantinis, texting, windshear, a blown tire or a wayward prairie dog (or maybe one of those creepy rabbits that hang out in the economy lots).
I appreciate the expertise you provided on the aviation side of things, this is just my take on the legal side of things.
Cheers!
Aaron
PS, sorry that last guy was such an ass.
Hi James.
I’d just like to voice a couple details:
The plane was on fire before coming to a halt. I could feel the heat from inside the cabin.
The current pilots did not help with the evacuation, nor did the other crew. The captain’s spine was injured, and he crawled from the cockpit. I saw him on a stretcher in the kitchen of the firehouse where we ran to in 24 degree cold; shortly after, i saw the flight attendents huddled together in their own corner, with the exception of one young man who wandered around in shock. A nurse, bleeding from her head, directed him toward his coworkers. None of them assisted the unaccompanied minor, who was on his own during the crash and for the hours spent without direction in the firehouse.
As for my quote to the Denver Post- i was in shock, exhausted, and at the end of all my ropes. A reporter approached me on the way out of the airport (as i was trying to work through how i’d stomach the car ride to a hotel without having a nervous breakdown), and i answered his questions without thinking. That was the simplest, driest way i could describe the crash.
I guess i’d just like to ask that you get all the facts straight (regarding my first two points, i mean) before being so caustic.
Emily Pellegrini
Hi Emily. Thank you for finding my article and the personal comment. I agree that your comment about “bumpiness” is irrelevant in the big picture, and I have no respect for reporters who hound and accost those involved immediately after a traumatic experience.
However is it true that your complaint and suit does actually take the pilots to task for “negligently aborting a takeoff?” I would be very interested in WHY this detail, even if small, should be of your complaint. To WANT a pilot to continue takeoff with a possible control surface problem or other major unknown issue is simply asking for death. Plain and simple.
If the references I’ve cited in my original article are solid then I stand by my comment that I find it reprehensible to be filing suit AGAINST THE PILOTS – who should be praised for saving their lives with their quick decision making.
Thanks again for the contribution.