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

The Germanwings Tragedy and Claims for Negligent Retention

There has been a lot of news about the terrible crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, which resulted in the death of 150 people when the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, (apparently) intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps. Reports are that Lubitz had suicidal tendencies and had been declared medically unfit to fly . What may soon follow are lawsuits against Germanwings and Lufthansa (which owns Germanwings) for claims similar to what New York calls "negligent retention": A claim for negligent supervision or retention arises when an employer places an employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which the injured party most probably would have been spared had the employer taken reasonable care in supervising or retaining the employee. Vione v. Tewell,  12 Mic.3d 973, 979, 820 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Sup.Ct., New York County, 2006). Under New York law, a claim for negligent hiring, supervision or retention, "in addition to the standard elements of negligence,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: New York's Consumer Protection Statute

Under New York law, there are several ways that consumers can recover damages (money) or other relief against businesses that ripped them off, deceived them, or otherwise treated them improperly. One of these ways is New York's Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349). Under GBL §349, a consumer can sue a business if he or she can show that the subject act or practice (1) was consumer-oriented; (2) was misleading in a material way; and (3) the consumer suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. If successful, a consumer can recover their actual damages (money they lost), their reasonable attorney fees, and "treble" (triple) damages up to $1,000 (if the business acted willfully and knowingly in deceiving the consumer). The $1,000 cap on treble damages needs to be eliminated. It is no deterrent to businesses behaving badly. 
Post a Comment
Read more