Texas Woman Sues Over Turbulent Flight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flight
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a Texas woman, Colleen O'Neal, suing Continental Airlines and other carriers for mental trauma stemming from a turbulent flight, which she claims caused her post-traumatic stress disorder and a fear of flying. Participants express frustration over what they perceive as frivolous lawsuits that burden taxpayers and the legal system. There is a consensus that judges should take a more active role in dismissing such cases and that lawyers exploit the system for profit. Suggestions include requiring plaintiffs to cover court costs to deter frivolous claims. Comparisons are made to other notorious lawsuits, highlighting a broader concern about the implications of allowing these types of cases to proceed. The conversation also touches on the societal impact of risk and personal responsibility in the context of air travel.
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,029
Reaction score
3,323
Why are these frivolous lawsuits allowed? They cost the taxpayers a fortune. She's suing the airlines for the weather?

A Texas woman is suing Continental Airlines and three other carriers over mental trauma she says was caused by a turbulent flight, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Colleen O'Neal alleges that the October 2009 flight from College Station, Texas, to Houston -- a usually short flight that ended up taking more than two hours -- encountered extreme turbulence that caused her to fear for her life.

O'Neal experienced post-traumatic stress disorder and now fears flying

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/1...bulent-flight/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1ahOrf3vU
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm white knuckles all the way even on a smooth flight. I'm going to sue as well. I've been on dozens of flights so I should make out pretty good.
 
*facepalm*

She should eventually pay all the costs of the trial. That should teach her.
 
I'm going to sue over that near miss at Dulles, we were circling the airport in a holding pattern for almost 45 minutes. Apparently the pilot got the ok to start descending, then suddenly we went straight up, the overhead bins opened and suitcases flew out, I got conked in the head, people were screaming.

It doesn't matter that pulling up like that prevented us from crashing into a plane beneath us that the control tower missed.

I now have PTSD caused by the article about that woman, so I am suing her for causing me crippling stress. I will never be able to look at carry-on luggage again, not to mention ever get on an airplane. It's all her fault!
 
Well, a serious answer raises a number of interesting questions.

Obviously, they exist because there is a group with substantial assets that benefits - lawyers. Before going on a lawyer bashing crusade, the same set of principles allows suits for e.g. ignoring a manufacturers usage guidelines for epoxy, leading to a tunnel roof collapse killing a driver (as happened in Boston). It's not an option not to have civil courts; that leads only to 'gangster capitalism' which is indistinguishable from communist dictatorship.

So, the real answer here is more measured: judges need to be willing to make jugements. Throw this case out, and charge the lawyers for all taxpayer court costs. The woman is immaterial, really. The case can only be brought because lawyers see a risk free gamble to make money. The answer to that is judges with convictions.
 
Sometimes, when I read about such cases, I yearn back to the time when the complainer had to pay the judge his fee up front...
Like in the Roman empire; those were the days..
 
PAllen said:
The answer to that is judges with convictions.
Or at least indictments.
 
I have had rough flights, too. It never occurred to me to sue. What lost opportunities!
 
I've been on a flight where there also was turbulence, causing me to spill my drink! I should have sued too!
 
  • #10
cartoon.jpg
 
  • #11
cmb said:
cartoon.jpg

Instantly reminded me of this haha!
 
Last edited:
  • #12
cmb said:
cartoon.jpg

One of my favorites. I have every farside ever published.
 
  • #13
PAllen said:
And how does that respect the destitute family of the woman killed by roof tunnel collapse? Simple answers are ... mostly wrong.
We're talking about frivolous suits, you have gone off topic.
 
  • #14
Evo said:
We're talking about frivolous suits, you have gone off topic.

I was responding to a suggestion for dealing with them that I found inadequate. If my comment was off topic, then so was the comment about how to deal with them based on a Roman model.
 
  • #15
PAllen said:
I was responding to a suggestion for dealing with them that I found inadequate. If my comment was off topic, then so was the comment about how to deal with them based on a Roman model.
Arildno was making a joke.

You went off topic in post #5, before Arildno's post, and you continue to drag this off topic.
 
  • #17
Evo said:
Arildno was making a joke.

You went off topic in post #5, before Arildno's post, and you continue to drag this off topic.

#5 was meant to discuss constructive ideas about your question "why are they allowed?". I made a specific suggestion for how to discourage them.
 
  • #18
PAllen said:
#5 was meant to discuss constructive ideas about your question "why are they allowed?". I made a specific suggestion for how to discourage them.
Yes, and that is why your post is there.
 
  • #19
Hi, Pallen!
I have a deep, abiding love for ancient Rome, as Evo knows well.
She also knows that I regard them as just about the most cynical, power-hungry and unempathic b*st*rds that ever lived.

It is within THAT context Evo easily can spot a joke from me, which might not be apparent for you.

My comment was not in any way meant to be disparaging of what you wrote, and I'm sorry if it seemed so.
 
  • #20
arildno said:
Hi, Pallen!
I have a deep, abiding love for ancient Rome, as Evo knows well.
She also knows that I regard them as just about the most cynical, power-hungry and unempathic b*st*rds that ever lived.

It is within THAT context Evo easily can spot a joke from me, which might not be apparent for you.

My comment was not in any way meant to be disparaging of what you wrote, and I'm sorry if it seemed so.

I had an inkling you were kidding or pulling my chain. Forget that, and get back to silly suits.

How does this compare to the suits about "I got fat and unhealthy eating only at burger chains"? As silly as those are, I rate this one sillier. Even sillier than the "I put hot coffee down in the car, and it spilt on me and burned" suit. This is in the league of the "million dollar pants" suit.
 
  • #21
Evo said:
Why are these frivolous lawsuits allowed? They cost the taxpayers a fortune. She's suing the airlines for the weather?

Don't know. I sort of agree with micromass' suggestion that she pay for ALL the court costs. But that does little to solve the real problem, that a judge allowed this to go to trial.

Therefore, the judge should pay for ALL the court costs.

Risk is a normal and natural part of life. She's safer taking a plane than the train, but if that causes her problems, she should definitely take the train, or a bus, or just drive. For short hops, it's quicker, anyway.
 

Similar threads

Jobless NYC woman sues college for $70K in tuition
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top