Skip to main content

Update: Lufthansa Knew the Co-Pilot Had Depression Issues

News reports indicate that Lufthansa (the owner/parent company of Germanwings) did know that Andreas Lubitz had depression problems, even during his pilot training:
Lubitz...told his Lufthansa flight training school in 2009 that he had a "previous episode of severe depression," the airline said Tuesday.
Despite this knowledge, Lufthansa allowed Lubitz to continue training to be a pilot and eventually put him in a cockpit, in a position where he could cause the mass murder of 149 people. Information like this supports a claim for negligent hiring or retention.

Damages to make victims "whole" are called compensatory damages. But could Germanwings/Lufthansa be held liable for additional damages, damages to punish them (called "punitive damages") for allowing Lubitz to complete his training and get in a cockpit, knowing he had mental health issues?

From a purely New York law perspective, probably not, because punitive damages are hard to get and usually involve only intentional, malicious conduct. Germanwings/Lufthansa did not intentionally allow Lubitz to do what he did. They were just very careless.

However, New York law has a theory of liability called "gross negligence", which can be satisfied if the offending party's conduct (here, Germanwings/Lufthansa) evinced a reckless indifference to the rights of others, or the offending party failed to exercise even slight care or slight diligence:
Gross negligence "differs in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence". "To constitute gross negligence, a party's conduct must smack of intentional wrongdoing or evince a reckless indifference to the rights of others". "Stated differently, a party is grossly negligent when it fails to exercise even slight care or slight diligence".
Dolphin Holdings, Ltd. v. Gander & White Shipping, Inc., 122 A.D.3d 901, 902, 998 N.Y.S.2d 107 (2d Dep't 2014). 

Gross negligence has been held to justify awards of punitive-like damages. See, e.g., Fordham-Coleman v. National Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp., 42 A.D.3d 106, 113, 834 N.Y.S.2d 422 (4th Dep't 2007). Again, this is all from a New York law perspective, but let's see how this case plays out. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more