MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:43 pm

Two Malaysian children who lost their father on flight MH370 have settled their negligence case out of court.
It is thought to be the first such case since the plane went missing between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing in March 2014.

The children's mother said she had accepted compensation from Malaysia Airlines and the government so the boys could move on with their lives. The amount has not been disclosed.

The search for the plane, which was carrying 239 people, continues.

'Amicable settlement'

The family of Jee Jing Hang, who was on the plane, brought a lawsuit against Malaysia Airlines on behalf of his two young sons last October for breach of contract, as it had failed to deliver passengers to Beijing.

The family also brought claims against the Malaysian government, the Department of Civil Aviation, the immigration department and the air force for negligence.

Read More : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32971909

I wonder what happened with the other negligence claims. I can't see how negligence can be proven if we don't know what happened to the plane? MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court Smiley12

MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court Smiley12

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:52 pm

feelthelove wrote:

Two Malaysian children who lost their father on flight MH370 have settled their negligence case out of court.
It is thought to be the first such case since the plane went missing between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing in March 2014.

The children's mother said she had accepted compensation from Malaysia Airlines and the government so the boys could move on with their lives. The amount has not been disclosed.

The search for the plane, which was carrying 239 people, continues.

'Amicable settlement'

The family of Jee Jing Hang, who was on the plane, brought a lawsuit against Malaysia Airlines on behalf of his two young sons last October for breach of contract, as it had failed to deliver passengers to Beijing.

The family also brought claims against the Malaysian government, the Department of Civil Aviation, the immigration department and the air force for negligence.

Read More : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32971909

I wonder what happened with the other negligence claims. I can't see how negligence can be proven if we don't know what happened to the plane?

Good afternoon FTL.

I'm just wondering if the actual word 'negligence'was not used in the law suit and another term or terms were used.

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:04 pm

Shady wrote:
feelthelove wrote:

Read More : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32971909

I wonder what happened with the other negligence claims. I can't see how negligence can be proven if we don't know what happened to the plane?

God afternoon FTL.

I'm just wondering if the actual word 'negligence'was not used in the law suit and another term or terms were used.

Good afternoon Shady Smile

Hope you are well!

Yes, breach of contract was brought against the airline with negligence being used in the lawsuits of the other parties involved. No mention is made about the success or otherwise of those lawsuits against the Malaysian government, the Department of Civil Aviation, the immigration department and the air force.

I wonder if we'll ever know what happened? MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court Confus10

MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court Confus10

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:17 pm

https://www.intellihub.com/freelance-journalist-hijacked-flight-370-passenger-sent-photo-hidden-iphone-tracing-back-secret-u-s-military-base-diego-garcia/

And I remember another article wrote about islanders nearby reported seeing a low flying passenger jet at the time of the disappearance.

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:19 pm

feelthelove wrote:
Shady wrote:

God afternoon FTL.

I'm just wondering if the actual word 'negligence'was not used in the law suit and another term or terms were used.

Good afternoon Shady Hope you are well!

Yes, breach of contract was brought against the airline with negligence being used in the lawsuits of the other parties involved. No mention is made about the success or otherwise of those lawsuits against the Malaysian government, the Department of Civil Aviation, the immigration department and the air force.

I wonder if we'll ever know what happened?

Yes I am well thank you.And yourself?

It's a tough one this MH370 disappearance.

Like always,I keep an open mind & keep away from the numerous conspiracy theories.But if I had to bet a couple of bob on it's whereabouts,I'd put my money on Davy Jone's locker......And not the alien spaceship.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:21 pm

Settlement is the only possibility. I mean, no one can argue 'cause in fact' can they?

Which makes you wonder why the defendants settled. The whole logic of a lawsuit is to extract some consequence...usually to avoid money damages. But if a plaintiff cannot prove a case, where's the motive? Exactly what were they trying to avoid in this situation?

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:https://www.intellihub.com/freelance-journalist-hijacked-flight-370-passenger-sent-photo-hidden-iphone-tracing-back-secret-u-s-military-base-diego-garcia/

And I remember another article wrote about islanders nearby reported seeing a low flying passenger jet at the time of the disappearance.

Yes, I'd read that too Tommy. If this is true what purpose would it serve and how could it be kept under wraps for such a long time??! affraid

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:25 pm

Shady wrote:
feelthelove wrote:

Good afternoon Shady Hope you are well!

Yes, breach of contract was brought against the airline with negligence being used in the lawsuits of the other parties involved. No mention is made about the success or otherwise of those lawsuits against the Malaysian government, the Department of Civil Aviation, the immigration department and the air force.

I wonder if we'll ever know what happened?

Yes I am well thank you.And yourself?

It's a tough one this MH370 disappearance.

Like always,I keep an open mind & keep away from the numerous conspiracy theories.But if I had to bet a couple of bob on it's whereabouts,I'd put my money on Davy Jone's locker......And not the alien spaceship.

I'm very well thank you. I think you're probably right, if something was going to come out I think it would have by now. I feel for the families, there will always be a little bit of hope left until the plane is found Sad

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:Settlement is the only possibility. I mean, no one can argue 'cause in fact' can they?

Which makes you wonder why the defendants settled. Exactly what were they trying to avoid?

A larger payment if & when the truth is discovered maybe?

Perhaps there was a clause in the settlement which stipulated that claimants could not make subsequent claims.

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:37 pm

feelthelove wrote:
Shady wrote:

God afternoon FTL.

I'm just wondering if the actual word 'negligence'was not used in the law suit and another term or terms were used.

Good afternoon Shady Hope you are well!

Yes, breach of contract was brought against the airline with negligence being used in the lawsuits of the other parties involved. No mention is made about the success or otherwise of those lawsuits against the Malaysian government, the Department of Civil Aviation, the immigration department and the air force.

I wonder if we'll ever know what happened?

So the word negligence was used then.Beats me.

But whatever happens,the truth will out eventually & the shit will hit the fan then

by Original Quill Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:49 pm

Shady wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Settlement is the only possibility. I mean, no one can argue 'cause in fact' can they?

Which makes you wonder why the defendants settled. Exactly what were they trying to avoid?

A larger payment if & when the truth is discovered maybe?

Perhaps there was a clause in the settlement which stipulated that claimants could not make subsequent claims.

But if the plaintiff cannot prove a case, why not answer the complaint and go to trial as quickly as possible? You win, and the case can never be brought again...perfect result!

It makes no sense for the defendants to settle. They have no downside.

by Guest Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Shady wrote:

A larger payment if & when the truth is discovered maybe?

Perhaps there was a clause in the settlement which stipulated that claimants could not make subsequent claims.

But if the plaintiff cannot prove a case, why not answer the complaint and go to trial as quickly as possible? You win, and the case can never be brought again...perfect result!

It makes no sense for the defendants to settle. They have no downside.

But Quill,any court case regarding MH370 will be long & protracted which could cost Malaysian Airlines millions.

I'm guessing it's financially cheaper to make a pay out following bargaining between the two parties lawyers.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:37 pm

Shady wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But if the plaintiff cannot prove a case, why not answer the complaint and go to trial as quickly as possible? You win, and the case can never be brought again...perfect result!

It makes no sense for the defendants to settle. They have no downside.

But Quill,any court case regarding MH370 will be long & protracted which could cost Malaysian Airlines millions.

I'm guessing it's financially cheaper to make a pay out following bargaining between the two parties lawyers.

Well, of course that is the usual reasoning. But this case is unique in that no one can prove cause-in-fact. It's like trying to prove a murder case when you can't even show the victim is dead. Maybe he abandoned his life in Muncie Indiana, and went to live in Bora Bora. You don't know (and how embarrassing when he comes back).

In lawsuits a plaintiff has to prove elements: breach of duty; causation; damages. If you fail to fill in the blank, in each case, the court issues a formal judgement against you. Or, if you get the case to a jury, they will give the same result.

Until they find out what happened, it is in the defendants' best interests to go through the process right now. If they wait, something really might turn up that would be bad.

So again, why do the defendants settler?

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 02, 2015 6:21 pm

Plus the official story will be heavily scrutinized in a court...

by Original Quill Tue Jun 02, 2015 6:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Plus the official story will be heavily scrutinized in a court...

That was my first thought...as well. Maybe the incentive isn't money.

Maybe someone just doesn't want the whole thing discussed. One of the possibilities that was tossed about was MH370 had enough fuel to make it to Diego Garcia, a super-secret naval and air base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Governments can control air traffic controllers, and even military search ships. They can't control lawyers...whose job, after all, is to ask questions. Cool

by Guest Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Plus the official story will be heavily scrutinized in a court...

That was my first thought...as well. Maybe the incentive isn't money.

Maybe someone just doesn't want the whole thing discussed. One of the possibilities that was tossed about was MH370 had enough fuel to make it to Diego Garcia, a super-secret naval and air base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Governments can control air traffic controllers, and even military search ships. They can't control lawyers...whose job, after all, is to ask questions.

Quill I doubt very much that it went to DG as there are too many people there & they are not all Special Forces or other sneaky beaky types.

Many of the islands occupants are bog standard service personnel & I'd bet good money that at least one of them would have spilt the beans by now.

I could be wrong but I bet I'm not.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:36 pm

Shady wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That was my first thought...as well. Maybe the incentive isn't money.

Maybe someone just doesn't want the whole thing discussed. One of the possibilities that was tossed about was MH370 had enough fuel to make it to Diego Garcia, a super-secret naval and air base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Governments can control air traffic controllers, and even military search ships. They can't control lawyers...whose job, after all, is to ask questions.

Quill I doubt very much that it went to DG as there are too many people there & they are not all Special Forces or other sneaky beaky types.

Many of the islands occupants are bog standard service personnel & I'd bet good money that at least one of them would have spilt the beans by now.

I could be wrong but I bet I'm not.

You are arguing with the example, Shady.

Why do you think the defendants settled when the plaintiffs could not even establish their case?

by Guest Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Shady wrote:

Quill I doubt very much that it went to DG as there are too many people there & they are not all Special Forces or other sneaky beaky types.

Many of the islands occupants are bog standard service personnel & I'd bet good money that at least one of them would have spilt the beans by now.

I could be wrong but I bet I'm not.

You are arguing with the example, Shady.

Why do you think the defendants settled when the plaintiffs could not even establish their case?

I'm merely responding to your mention of Diego Garcia.I didn't respond to the other points.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:07 pm

Shady wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are arguing with the example, Shady.

Why do you think the defendants settled when the plaintiffs could not even establish their case?

I'm merely responding to your mention of Diego Garcia.I didn't respond to the other points.

I know. My point is that Diego Garcia is not important; it's an example of a possibility, nothing more.

I'm much more interested in what may be a major clue being revealed here. Why are defendants settling a major lawsuit when ordinarily they wouldn't have to? The plaintiffs cannot show any specific wrongdoing. Unless the defendants are enthusiastic to just give away money, they have no incentive to settle.

So, why are they doing it? Something is in the mix here that is not apparent.

by Guest Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Shady wrote:

I'm merely responding to your mention of Diego Garcia.I didn't respond to the other points.

I know. My point is that Diego Garcia is not important; it's an example of a possibility, nothing more.

I'm much more interested in what may be a major clue being revealed here. Why are defendants settling a major lawsuit when ordinarily they wouldn't have to? The plaintiffs cannot show any specific wrongdoing. Unless the defendants are enthusiastic to just give away money, they have no incentive to settle.

So, why are they doing it? Something is in the mix here that is not apparent.

Okay....But in my opinion,they do have incentive to settle because they want the families to stop applying pressure for answers.

So pay them a big wad of dosh & hope that they shut up & go away.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:31 pm

Shady wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I know. My point is that Diego Garcia is not important; it's an example of a possibility, nothing more.

I'm much more interested in what may be a major clue being revealed here. Why are defendants settling a major lawsuit when ordinarily they wouldn't have to? The plaintiffs cannot show any specific wrongdoing. Unless the defendants are enthusiastic to just give away money, they have no incentive to settle.

So, why are they doing it? Something is in the mix here that is not apparent.

Okay....But in my opinion,they do have incentive to settle because they want the families to stop applying pressure for answers.

So pay them a big wad of dosh & hope that they shut up & go away.

I think they've got more than a mere sympathy factor. Indeed, I hadn't heard much sympathy lately. As I predicted a year ago, it's forgotten news.

Where I think we have a common mind is...yes, reinvigorating the story with a trial would make for some front page, above the fold, news.

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:01 am

The Judge ordered both parties to come to a settlement acceptable to both otherwise he would have to accept the defendents application to strike the lawsuit from the record on the basis that the loss of MH317 had been declared an accident under the Chicago Convention aviation treaty which governs aircraft incidents including missing aircraft.

Four other lawsuits before the court were also dealt with in the same way.

Once an aircraft incident is declared an accident it opens up the route to compensation being paid under the Montreal Convention to the parties who have suffered a loss so in this instance it saved the plaintiffs and the defendants having to go through that process.

A wise decision I would say.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:18 am

Wise for someone. No questions asked in a messy trial.

Had I represented the defendants, I would have held out for the win on the motion to strike. Much better result, and why not when the Court is promising a 100% victory?

Which makes one wonder, why didn't the defendants hold out?

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:05 am

Original Quill wrote:Wise for someone. No questions asked in a messy trial.

Had I represented the defendants, I would have held out for the win on the motion to strike. Much better result, and why not when the Court is promising a 100% victory?

Which makes one wonder, why didn't the defendants hold out?

I can't figure out why you would want to do that Quilll. Why would the defendants going for the win produce a better result than waht they got?

by Original Quill Fri Jun 05, 2015 4:19 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Wise for someone. No questions asked in a messy trial.

Had I represented the defendants, I would have held out for the win on the motion to strike. Much better result, and why not when the Court is promising a 100% victory?

Which makes one wonder, why didn't the defendants hold out?

I can't figure out why you would want to do that Quilll. Why would the defendants going for the win produce a better result than waht they got?

Legal freedom. Save money. Walk away with no loose ends. Alternatively, settling the lawsuit leaves at least the taint of negligence or worse. Notwithstanding non-disclosure and non-admit clauses, the world is left to wonder.

And that's crucial: why has someone decided it is better to leave the world to wonder, than at least to go in the direction of finding answers? What's the incentive? It seems everywhere you turn in this case someone is pulling a shroud over things. As I teach all of my young lawyers: Look for questions without answers and answers without questions.

This is an answer without a question.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jun 05, 2015 4:43 pm

It's a crazy system. One might as well go to a casino and take a bet really.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jun 05, 2015 5:10 pm

I don't like it when people sue for emotional distress. It's as if they saying that money can replace a person.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jun 05, 2015 5:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:Wise for someone. No questions asked in a messy trial.

Had I represented the defendants, I would have held out for the win on the motion to strike. Much better result, and why not when the Court is promising a 100% victory?

Which makes one wonder, why didn't the defendants hold out?

Maybe they would have had to pay out more under the Montreal Convention?

by Irn Bru Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:37 am

Original Quill wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Wise for someone. No questions asked in a messy trial.

Had I represented the defendants, I would have held out for the win on the motion to strike. Much better result, and why not when the Court is promising a 100% victory?

Which makes one wonder, why didn't the defendants hold out?

I can't figure out why you would want to do that Quilll. Why would the defendants going for the win produce a better result than waht they got?

Legal freedom. Save money. Walk away with no loose ends. Alternatively, settling the lawsuit leaves at least the taint of negligence or worse. Notwithstanding non-disclosure and non-admit clauses, the world is left to wonder.

And that's crucial: why has someone decided it is better to leave the world to wonder, than at least to go in the direction of finding answers? What's the incentive? It seems everywhere you turn in this case someone is pulling a shroud over things. As I teach all of my young lawyers: Look for questions without answers and answers without questions.

This is an answer without a question.

That's all very well Quill but I just can't see why going for the win would be any better that the outcome they got anyway.

Both parties got what they wanted and I can't see where any money would be saved.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:09 am

Irn Bru wrote:That's all very well Quill but I just can't see why going for the win would be any better that the outcome they got anyway.

Both parties got what they wanted and I can't see where any money would be saved.

We don't know what they got. We know that a full walk with no liability would be the best they could have gotten with a dismissal.

I doubt the plaintiffs settled for that.

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:That's all very well Quill but I just can't see why going for the win would be any better that the outcome they got anyway.

Both parties got what they wanted and I can't see where any money would be saved.

We don't know what they got. We know that a full walk with no liability would be the best they could have gotten with a dismissal.

I doubt the plaintiffs settled for that.

There may be no liability in the case of the lawsuit but the defendants are still liable for compesation because the relatives of these people still died whilst in the care of the airline - accident or not.

Under the Montreal Convention there is a set formula for determining compensation for loss of life and last time I looked it was around $180,000 tops.

So the judge ordered a compromise settlement which may have been more or less o possiblyr based on the convention formula and that's why it was probably the best outcome for both parties as it saved them having to go through the compensation routine effectively squaring it all away without the need to do that.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 11, 2015 4:36 am

Well, we don't know what we don't know. I'm always suspicious of anything like this that keeps information away from public knowledge.

One thing about a trial...it makes things public. I've been involved in thousands of cases, and case settlements, and frequently one of the motives to settle is to 'keep things under wraps'. In fact, AIG had a form to fill out if the publicity should be avoided...something about, will the insured be adversely affected publically?

This is a classic case for a double-turn.

by Sponsored content

MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court

Re: MH370 disappearance: Negligence suit settled out of court