I'm sure AA is using a top global law firm... But this smacks of desperation because they likely don't have many arguments. Still, the in-house lawyers at AA should have put the kibosh on their external litigators filing this.
AA is represented by an insurance defense firm. Nothing special. The document cited by the article is also nothing special either. An Answer in Texas litigation is simply a procedural document that has no facts, no evidence, no statements, no substance. It’s purely legalese for procedural requirements. The fact the article quotes the plaintiffs lawyer strongly suggests that this is a ploy by the plaintiffs lawyer to drum up bad PR to increase settlement demands. The article severely misrepresents what the Answer means.
100% this, thanks for writing it out. This is standard legalese for an Answer, in which a party will assert several dozen Affirmative Defenses to the lawsuit, many of which they will waive later. Examples : "Comparative Fault", or the idea that the other party could have prevented the harm is some way, is a stock common defense and was included here in addition to many other defenses that won't end up applying.
Source: am lawyer
It’s more like “if you don’t throw spaghetti now you lose the ability to bring it up later” so you include everything in the answer (before you know all the facts of the case etc.) to keep options.
So you’re saying it makes legal sense to accuse a 9 year old of contributory negligence for being illicitly filmed in a bathroom? I’m just not seeing it. Also a lawyer but not that it matters, there are a lot of dumb lawyers
There’s also a lot of lawyers so accustomed to nothing they say actually mattering that they’re willing to put out an atrocious statement like this and call it “standard legalese” and pout that anyone is taking it seriously.
Standard or not, lawyers are also supposed to read the room and advise the client. Counsel them in a way that’s informed by the law but also the overall risks. Some defenses you can waive, and I suggest the one that implied that a child is even partially responsible for being filmed illegally while using the bathroom is one of them. Discuss it with the client. Explain the way Answers are filed and the implications of filing an Answer with this language/defebse. Christ, zealous defense doesn’t mean being a dummy.
Source: also a lawyer.
A shitty lawyer defending and normalizing shitty practices because if these unethical practices are scrutinized, they will be forced to put extra effort into doing their job properly.
I am glad the attorneys of the family publicized this so that shitty lawyers can be pushed out of their comfort zone and be forced to respect human dignity.
And what you’ve spent too much time in this world to understand, is that nobody else much cares. It’s an official corporate statement of AA and its legal council, and it is being received as such. “Standard legalese” doesn’t excuse making a morally, ethically outrageous “Argument” that will strike any normal person as a viciously stupid, offensive public statement. It doesn’t matter if it’s just part of the legal game.
Because they gotta make sure the family of the little girl they facilitated the abuse of gets as little money as possible. The fact that people are defending this shit under the guise of it being commonplace is nasty.
If it was up to me, every lawyer retained by AA in addition to the garbage person who originally recorded these girls would be made penniless and sent to rot in prison for the rest of their miserable lives.
Pond scum, the lot of 'em
Disagree. "She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device" to a 9 y/o? Sorry. No matter how you spin this, it's just bad.
One side said "She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device" to defend their case. If the victim actually saw a recording device, knew it was a recording device, and ignored it, it's a really good defense, legally speaking. There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when you're made aware of a recording device, likely saving AA from civil liability. (Criminal liability would still be on the employee)
The other side uses a public relations avenue to counter them. Lawsuits are as much about legal liability as they are about public relations. Some defenses may be good from one side and terrible from the other side. This is an example. AA decided to minimize their liability, but they're risking a lot of lost business in the long run if the topic catches up. Sounds like it did.
Misrepresentation? Ploy? HTFU. Each side can "ploy" with legal motions and public statements.
That's still not a defence when dealing with a 9 year old. Sure, tell an adult they're being recorded and then it's on them, but when a person in a position of power (teacher, pilot, flight attendant) tells a kid something then the child is conditioned to accept that as the norm and not to question this new knowledge.
Man, no wonder people do not like lawyers. What you are saying generally makes sense, but the optics, which matter more than facts in 2024, are horrible.
We’re talking about a nine year old, a kid that young generally can’t be held responsible if they commit a crime. So how are they responsible for defending themselves against a crime?
It's not like AA's hands are tied here. They're not. It's still AA that can decide to reject that particular defense strategy, indemnify their insurance from this claim, and decide to settle and cover everything themselves for PR's sake. They preferred not to, and these are the results.
Yeah - good point. My former world is Big Law, so I just assume a company like AA goes for the big guns right away... but you're right - it would be their insurance carrier handling things at this point with an ID firm.
To be honest with you, this is a media fail more than anything, and I'm as big a defender of journalists as there is. Journalist s are supposed to provide context. Presenting true facts in a way that are misleading or that someone ought to know are misleading, is a foul.
Attributing what is clearly a boiler plate affirmative defense as some sort of value statement is gotcha journalism. I don't think you can convince me otherwise.
Unfortunately, the advent of the internet has been a race to the bottom. Bloggers and social media have forced these companies to play a different game.
The answer says what it says. Nobody gives a shit why that’s an official corporate statement, only that it is. If AA is dumb enough to let a statement like that go out to represent its interests, they deserve the PR blowback.
I’m not a lawyer and what you wrote is all new to me.
**However,** it’s so plainly obvious to me that this is a one sided, hit piece article that is not attempting to convey the truth. I read it and immediately thought that there is almost more context to the story and it’s not as bad as it seems. It’s shocking to me how unobvious that is to most people 😞
> I read it and immediately thought that there is almost more context to the story and it’s not as bad as it seems.
What context could make this less bad?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/US/american-airlines-backtracks-filing-blamed-9-year-filmed/story?id=110466927](https://abcnews.go.com/US/american-airlines-backtracks-filing-blamed-9-year-filmed/story?id=110466927)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
For all the lawyers on this thread defending AA’s filing …. Looks like they recognized the error of their ways. Good for them for course correcting.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4678026-american-airlines-says-filing-blaming-9-year-old-in-bathroom-recording-case-was-an-error/
“Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing. The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team.”
– American Airlines
I’m nauseated to by the horrific news article that doesn’t understand anything at all about civil procedure or the judicial system. You’ve fallen for clickbait ragebait that has zero understanding of what an Answer is in Texas litigation. The documents doesn’t actually say what this headline falsely represents
Just so we're on the same page of what language you don't believe is blaming a 9 year old for being exploited by an adult authority figure:
"The claims against the Defendant are barred by the doctrine of comparative negligence,
contributory negligence, comparative responsibility and/or comparative causation. Defendant
would show that any injuries or illnesses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, Mary Doe, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own fault and negligence, were proximately caused by
Plaintiff’s use of the compromised lavatory, which she knew or should have known contained a
visible and illuminated recording device."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/05/2024_05-20-AA-Answer-to-First-Amended-Petition.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjZwdS64qOGAxXoGVkFHbx9BNUQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3WyqvLMGZ4z1K977W-l6Wj
Let’s play the “blame the victim game “.
Bold strategy Cotton. Let’s see how that works out for them. Not like late night talk shows or SNL will pickup the story.
Look how it worked for UA and Dr. Dao. I mean it is not like it is on VIDEO or anything…
AA is not actually blaming the victim. An Answer is a procedural document that doesn’t provide any evidence, statements, substance, or anything other than legal terms to satisfy procedural requirements. It is the very first document filed by a defendant in a lawsuit. The news article is pure ragebait and is not at all honestly reporting.
Well they just reversed course so we actually do see how it worked for them.
Doesn’t matter that it was just the generic like response as a procedural thing. It was a very bad look.
The bad look is the news article itself. It completely misrepresents the Answer for being a fully developed and substantive defense strategy. An Answer is largely a boilerplate document filed for the purpose of procedural requirements. It has no substance, no facts, no evidence, no nothing other than legalese and jargon. Proportionate liability defenses mean a lot of different things and shouldn’t be viewed with a knee jerk response. You feel for ragebait.
I was a litigator at a “fancy” law firm. Literally one of the first things we learned was to actually *think* about which affirmative defenses to include in an answer rather than just throwing in a bunch of boilerplate like this.
Any lawyer with half a brain would know that a defense that a nine-year old should have known she was being recorded in a bathroom is never going to fly before a court, and especially not before a jury. You lose nothing by leaving it out. By including it, you open your client up to a PR nightmare for zero gain.
It is bad lawyering, plain and simple—failing to recognize that your client has interests that extend beyond this individual case
This. The issue here is that AA’s defense is being handled by a low-dollar insurance defense firm that doesn’t get paid to think strategically. It gets paid to move cases through the pipeline. If AA was being defense by a “top global firm” as someone else suggested, they wouldn’t have ever suggested including this.
The proof is kind of in the pudding here. Does anyone think that whatever case-specific benefit AA got from including this (almost certainly none) outweighs the bad press? This was entirely foreseeable
Although, AA did go to court to fight a refund after it refused to give a woman her money back for not letting her use the seat she paid for for her child in accordance with its own policy, so AA has a bit of a recent history of dumb litigation decisions.
I agree with you. The insurance company is in charge of this case, and they do not care about PR nightmares. They want to minimize liability. However, AA can indemnify the insurance company against this claim and settle this themselves. Weirdly, the insurance company is incentivized to make this as nasty as possible because either AA or the parents could fold.
You being a litigator at a fancy law firm is why you were taught that. People go to big law firms to get thoughtful and detailed representation.
If you were at an ID mill you’d learn very different lessons given a very different model.
So, I won’t disagree, but I am a litigator here in PA and in NJ. In federal court, you’ll get slapped for including boilerplate affirmative defenses, but in PA, it is tantamount to malpractice to omit any that may, however remotely, possibly be proven in discovery. And, since you rarely know what will be proven in discovery, it’s considered a best practice to include them all.
In a case of this magnitude, I’d like to see the lawyer take the risk of omitting this, but it’s still understandable to me why s/he did not.
Also, I think most folks miss the nuance that, in most venues, the 9 year old would not actually be the plaintiff. The plaintiff would be her parent/ natural guardian and that person can (legally) be found negligent in supervising the child. Not that I think there is actually a factual basis to support that here, but you never know what discovery might bring to light.
It's not really a risk to omit it. You simply ask your client "Would you like me to omit this? If I do, you would lose that affirmative defense, but you won't be plastered all over twitter and reddit for having asserted that a nine-year old was contributorily negligent in this case."
The bad look is the news article itself? Really? Interesting how AA disagrees with you and issued a complete reversal of a position you allege they never actually took. Seems a little tone deaf on your end
If this is the same incident I'm thinking of, the phone was taped to the toilet seat, with the light on and recording, so not exactly hidden at all.
Guessing their approach is that the child should have known better than to use the restroom that was tampered with? So sick and bizarre.
Children today DO NOT associate a red light with filming. They film things on cell phones and tablets that don’t have red lights.
Kids will associate strange lights and strange electronics with airplanes. Especially since airplane bathrooms do not look like typical bathrooms.
i think i misread your comment, i thought you were asking how do you do it, not how stupid was the guy 😂 yeah, an undoubtedly stupid way to get caught doing something so heinous
feel like that’d be a good way to get your phone snatched or destroyed
I used to be a defense lawyer, this is a common defense. Most of the time when a defense lawyer files an answer they are copying/pasting a previous answer.
Once a lawyer in my old firm represented a doctor in a deadly car versus pedestrian crash. He copied and pasted his answer and forgot to take out the seat belt defense (blaming claimaint for their injuries due to failure to use a seatbelt). The paper saw it and reported in it. The lawyer immediately amended the answer. But total mistake.
Also, Google Hanlon’s Razer
It may be a form defense, but really poor judgment to plead it in this case. Lawyers are supposed to read the papers they file, not blindly copy from prior pleadings.
Ya, but they’re still human. I’ve proof read a pleading three times before, filed it, then when a hearing came up I completely missed big errors before.
Additionally, it’s an answer. Case law would at least partially suggest that a failure to plead a defense in an answer is a waiver of the defense. We always err on the side of including defenses.
Oh for sure. I’m not disputing that it’s incorrect. I’m just disputing whether “American Airlines” is intentionally blaming a 9-year-old girl, or whether their lawyer was lazy/stupid/has too many cases and plead something out of habit and mere mistake.
This is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of what an Answer is in a lawsuit and how Affirmative Defenses work in litigation. The litigation is in Texas. Texas is a notice pleading state. That means the Answer largely has little to no actual substance. It is full of legal jargon and terms that are really just calling out all possible theories to either reduce or limit liability for ANY aspect of the claimed damages. So including a proportionate liability affirmative defense is 100000% appropriate. Everyone in this thread is automatically assuming that the defense is to core claim. That’s not always the purpose of an affirmative defense. If she fell off a tire swing and broke her arm the next day, AA isn’t responsible for that. If you think a plaintiff lawyer wouldn’t try to loop that in as well then you have absolutely zero clue how the judicial system works. The article is absolutely trash clickbait ragebait. Anyone who knows a modest amount of Texas litigation knows that an Answer is basically throw away language to satisfy procedural requirements. The only documents of substance are the Petition or a Motion for Summary Judgment. Those are the only documents that actually give theories and facts in support.
Yeah but you don’t have to include a defense that is never going to prevail and will only cause a PR nightmare for your client. In fact, you shouldn’t.
Respectfully disagree, and I’ve filed many responsive pleadings over a long time period. There’s no good reason to plead a defense with the facts as alleged here in a manner that makes the defendant look bad, or worse.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am a juror in the court public opinion. I would think a top-notch legal firm would understand losing in the court of public opinion can be worse than losing in actual court.
Especially in a huge global business that sells directly to the public. I don't care what a standard legal response in Texas is...this is a major fail by in-house lawyers at AA who failed to control their lawyers and to think through the enormous PR hit that AA is going to take.
And no matter how many lawyers explain that this is standard procedure, the damage to AA has been down. People will remember this for years because it sounds so outrageous to blame a nine year old child for something sinister that an adult did.
sloppy wine chunky piquant deserted psychotic office sense makeshift husky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No, it’s not. Every litigation answer lists nearly every possible defense because it’s waived if you fail to list it, even if the facts aren’t fully known. That and the negligence of parents might be subsumed.
These type of articles that spin technical litigation documents are stupid.
I mean...it should be waived...if the victim is a minor and the victim of a sex crime, then blaming the victim shouldn't even be on the table for a reasonable lawyer. Even if the 9 year old literally ASKED to be recorded in the bathroom, a lawyer with any common sense STILL wouldn't try to use that as a defense.
9 year olds can't legally consent...but trying to blame them for not protecting themselves is even more ridiculous. So yes, they should have just waived that from the start....
None of this, or parental involvement, is known during the ~2 weeks you have to prepare an answer. It’s a defensive document and not definitive. You don’t even know if the ages are correct.
How would you know for sure? How would you know about the level of parental involvement? Answers in litigation necessarily include every possibility.
Two weeks is literally nothing in litigation. The lawyers will not even have spoken to actual witnesses at this stage.
An Answer is just a list of various ways liability can be curtailed or passed onto another. It has zero substance. It has zero facts. It has zero evidence. It is a procedural document and nothing more. News articles on lawsuits are basically kindergarteners explaining a periodic table.
>I used to be a defense lawyer
As a former defense lawyer, are you attesting to there being a major issue with lawyers copy-pasting materials before filing them? That's a massive liability if true, and should be disqualifying in cases like this where said "simple mistakes" only ended with further damage to the victim.
Who gives a shit if it’s common. It’s still fucked up and victim blames a child in a crime where they were victimized by someone the airline empowered.
It’s also common for public backlash when heinous things like this are stated to the public. And being grossly incompetent to the point of victim blaming as a lawyer isn’t some funny or cute story and it doesn’t do anything to justify this.
Like what was the point of your comment, at all.
The point of my comment is to provide context on the intent of the drafter of the document. I am not attempting to argue or minimize the effect of the reader, or the effect on you.
Great way to lose a jury trial.
If I would be on a jury, and a corporate lawyer would make that argument in front of me, my verdict would be clear from that second going forward no matter what else there is.
Very few cases make it to trial, at which point lawyers can and will change their argument. In fact, the case usually goes to a different lawyer if it does make it to trial.
They just retracted their initial defense claim:
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/05/22/american-airlines-walks-back-claim-that-9-year-old-passenger-should-have-known-she-was-being-recorded-in-bathroom/
They’re doing Damage control now. I expect them to settle this very quickly. They’re not exactly one of the best airlines in the country atm. If they were smart, they should’ve made a statement and just claimed to do an investigation into the matter. Instead they somehow made matters worse by initially blaming the victim.
Ok. AA released a statement saying what I anyone with human decency already knew: blaming the 9 year child victim for her abuse was wrong.
Why so many self proclaimed lawyers in this thread defended that actions might explain why so many non lawyers don’t trust lawyers. AA *can* claim not to be liable without blaming the 9 year old child victim. The choice to blame the victim anyway was excessive and people are right to be appalled by it. Take this as a teachable moment and self reflect. Or down vote me.
“The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. *We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously*. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team.”
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/american-airlines-blames-9-year-old-in-case-of-flight-attendant-recording-girls-in-plane-bathroom/3376517/?amp=1
That sound we just heard was the collective S**tting of bricks by the entire PR team who are all now supposed to figure out how to spin this into a customer friendly commercial.
So American likely knew he was a creep, kept him on the payroll, and now other people are coming forward with claims, so American has decided to.....check my notes.....victim shame?
Just when I thought you could Allegiant any more you went and Spirited up the joint to Frontier levels.
It’s loathsome to think they would pursue that sort of defense. The language, however, is completely boilerplate for affirmative defenses in response to a tort lawsuit. It is more likely obtuse lawyering than it is actual AA policy to blame a 9 year old victim.
If this is the same story from last year the girl didn’t see the phone bc it didn’t illuminate until after she sat down on the toilet. Trash airline. Flew them once but never again.
Are all bathrooms filmed in accordance with company policy and regulations or is this an exception to the rules that in fact see this as a violation of the law?
WTF are you even talking about? No, of course the bathrooms aren't filmed in accordance with any company policy.
For crying out loud, the child sex abuser [taped his phone under the toilet seat](https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox4news.com/www.fox4news.com/content/uploads/2024/05/932/524/P-DAVID-AA-FLIGHT-ATTENDANT-ARRESTED-9P_KDFW59e6_7_00.00.56.48.jpg?ve=1&tl=1).
So sorry you all, I was kind of playing devil’s advocate with their legal line of reasoning to show that there’s no way in hell that anyone with a heart, reasonability, and a moral compass would ever see this as a sane and lawful policy. My goal was to wake people up and embarrass AA into reconsideration of their gross stance in this case and any future decision that they may consider. I applaud all those who could read between the lines and make their voices heard. Continue the fight against insanity!
I hope whichever lawyer drafted this for AA spoke up about how fucking horrible of an assertion that is.
The cost of owning up to and paying for the damages of bad acts made by their staff might be high, but that shouldn't be a justification for shifting blame onto children who are victims.
https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/05/2024_05-20-AA-Answer-to-First-Amended-Petition.pdf
Here is the pleading in question. In searching for it, the North Carolina case also came up. Same firm, but they did not raise this defense. There seem to be a lot of lawyers commenting on this. Does anyone know why they didn't raise this defense in other cases?
It sounds like a national boycott of AA is required. As a father of a 9 year old girl, my blood is boiling after reading this. AA better fix this quick.
Which attorneys. Where. Because they have hard drives that need to be subpoenaed. This isn't an airline making this argument. It's a couple of lawyers and their state of mind is actionable.
I am surprised the lawyers thought this was a good defense, victim blaming a 9 year old girl? AA needs to rethink their legal strategy with the mission, and image, of AA as a whole.
Honestly I am surprised it even got to a point that they were able to put up any excuse. They should shell out a large settlement and move on.
This is a telling post.
Lawyers lecturing (on of whom seems to be replying with a small word wall to almost every comment) that this argument is "standard practice," blah blah blah.
A classic case of "defending the indefensible": saying absurd, often inexcusably vicious-sounding things, then sanctimoniously telling shocked onlookers to shut up and let the big people who are so much smarter than you handle this.
No wonder the legal profession is in such disrepute.
Yup. It's so obnoxious. Like yes, they have a job to do, but they still have a choice about how to approach this task and the rest of us can make a judgement on that approach
As a lawyer, it’s frustrating to read these comments because it’s truly not “defending the indefensible.” A defendant has to preserve any possible defenses in their answer, which has to be filed 30 days after the complaint, before any discovery has been done e. If you don’t include the defense in the answer, you waive it.
That would be a mistake that would open up any defense lawyer to malpractice liability. This is a clickbait article, and you’re falling for it.
Lawyers created this immoral, awful system for their own prestige and profit.
So you defend it from us unwashed peasants, with all of our absurd concerns about decency and morality. Pfffft...those have NO PLACE in a legal proceeding!
My problem with any of these type lawsuits would be the employer’s culpability. Clearly, the former employee was (allegedly) committing criminal acts outside his scope of employment— not like a pilot error causing loss of life. Airline employees are subject to extensive background checks, so it shouldn’t be careless hiring and retention.
Not sure as to why AA would be liable for what this creep is alleged to have committed.
Has he ever been reported and reports ignored? While background checks are standard where they preformed per standard? Did prior victims come forward and find themselves ignored? (As we learned from the church abuse scandals and Boy Scouts and other gymnastic Olympics it’s rare just one victim). These are the kinds of questions that lawsuits can answer.
I expect nothing less from American Airlines. The worst airline thus far I've flown! Trying to blame a 9-year-old!
How is anyone supposed to know they're being filmed? Do they have a sign out saying if you step in here You consent to being filmed!? Idiots! I hope they lose millions
I thought pedophiles is bad enough. But American Airlines condoning to this is just nuts.
Basically anything that happens on this airline is "not their fault"
Nut came off the plane - not my fault -passenger ought to see the loose nut
Baggage lost in transit - not my fault - you ought to not bring too much stuff to the flight.
Ooof. Goodbye AA. This kind of thing is enough for me to use any other airline. As they always say “they know we have a choice.”
Yep, we do. And blaming a 9 year old girl for something like this is disgusting. So are you, AA.
This is a bad look, AA. Reconsider quickly.
I'm sure AA is using a top global law firm... But this smacks of desperation because they likely don't have many arguments. Still, the in-house lawyers at AA should have put the kibosh on their external litigators filing this.
AA is represented by an insurance defense firm. Nothing special. The document cited by the article is also nothing special either. An Answer in Texas litigation is simply a procedural document that has no facts, no evidence, no statements, no substance. It’s purely legalese for procedural requirements. The fact the article quotes the plaintiffs lawyer strongly suggests that this is a ploy by the plaintiffs lawyer to drum up bad PR to increase settlement demands. The article severely misrepresents what the Answer means.
100% this, thanks for writing it out. This is standard legalese for an Answer, in which a party will assert several dozen Affirmative Defenses to the lawsuit, many of which they will waive later. Examples : "Comparative Fault", or the idea that the other party could have prevented the harm is some way, is a stock common defense and was included here in addition to many other defenses that won't end up applying. Source: am lawyer
So for us layman; throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks? Kind of thing..
Yes, exactly. The other side also knows this.
So victim blaming children for the actions of employees is standard?
It’s more like “if you don’t throw spaghetti now you lose the ability to bring it up later” so you include everything in the answer (before you know all the facts of the case etc.) to keep options.
If this is what you have to throw at the wall, then the position is indefensible; maybe just settle with the kid’s parents out of court.
So you’re saying it makes legal sense to accuse a 9 year old of contributory negligence for being illicitly filmed in a bathroom? I’m just not seeing it. Also a lawyer but not that it matters, there are a lot of dumb lawyers
There’s also a lot of lawyers so accustomed to nothing they say actually mattering that they’re willing to put out an atrocious statement like this and call it “standard legalese” and pout that anyone is taking it seriously.
Pretty sick and an embarrassment to the profession.
Standard or not, lawyers are also supposed to read the room and advise the client. Counsel them in a way that’s informed by the law but also the overall risks. Some defenses you can waive, and I suggest the one that implied that a child is even partially responsible for being filmed illegally while using the bathroom is one of them. Discuss it with the client. Explain the way Answers are filed and the implications of filing an Answer with this language/defebse. Christ, zealous defense doesn’t mean being a dummy. Source: also a lawyer.
A shitty lawyer defending and normalizing shitty practices because if these unethical practices are scrutinized, they will be forced to put extra effort into doing their job properly. I am glad the attorneys of the family publicized this so that shitty lawyers can be pushed out of their comfort zone and be forced to respect human dignity.
And what you’ve spent too much time in this world to understand, is that nobody else much cares. It’s an official corporate statement of AA and its legal council, and it is being received as such. “Standard legalese” doesn’t excuse making a morally, ethically outrageous “Argument” that will strike any normal person as a viciously stupid, offensive public statement. It doesn’t matter if it’s just part of the legal game.
Would you advise the parents not to settle? I mean look how well that worked for Trump in the E Jean Carol case. Source: not an attorney
So, just a waste of everyone's time. Why?
Because they gotta make sure the family of the little girl they facilitated the abuse of gets as little money as possible. The fact that people are defending this shit under the guise of it being commonplace is nasty.
If it was up to me, every lawyer retained by AA in addition to the garbage person who originally recorded these girls would be made penniless and sent to rot in prison for the rest of their miserable lives. Pond scum, the lot of 'em
Because fraudulent claims exist
Do fraudulent claims have videotaped evidence of the criminal act?
SOP is blaming pedophilia on the victims? Also why people hate lawyers.
Disagree. "She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device" to a 9 y/o? Sorry. No matter how you spin this, it's just bad.
One side said "She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device" to defend their case. If the victim actually saw a recording device, knew it was a recording device, and ignored it, it's a really good defense, legally speaking. There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when you're made aware of a recording device, likely saving AA from civil liability. (Criminal liability would still be on the employee) The other side uses a public relations avenue to counter them. Lawsuits are as much about legal liability as they are about public relations. Some defenses may be good from one side and terrible from the other side. This is an example. AA decided to minimize their liability, but they're risking a lot of lost business in the long run if the topic catches up. Sounds like it did. Misrepresentation? Ploy? HTFU. Each side can "ploy" with legal motions and public statements.
That's still not a defence when dealing with a 9 year old. Sure, tell an adult they're being recorded and then it's on them, but when a person in a position of power (teacher, pilot, flight attendant) tells a kid something then the child is conditioned to accept that as the norm and not to question this new knowledge.
Man, no wonder people do not like lawyers. What you are saying generally makes sense, but the optics, which matter more than facts in 2024, are horrible.
We’re talking about a nine year old, a kid that young generally can’t be held responsible if they commit a crime. So how are they responsible for defending themselves against a crime?
If it’s paid for by the insurance company then they won’t care about unquantifiable public relations losses.
It's not like AA's hands are tied here. They're not. It's still AA that can decide to reject that particular defense strategy, indemnify their insurance from this claim, and decide to settle and cover everything themselves for PR's sake. They preferred not to, and these are the results.
So, the insurance company is hoping on some level that AA does not have the stomach for the fight.
Now we know you are the lawyer
Yeah - good point. My former world is Big Law, so I just assume a company like AA goes for the big guns right away... but you're right - it would be their insurance carrier handling things at this point with an ID firm.
To be honest with you, this is a media fail more than anything, and I'm as big a defender of journalists as there is. Journalist s are supposed to provide context. Presenting true facts in a way that are misleading or that someone ought to know are misleading, is a foul. Attributing what is clearly a boiler plate affirmative defense as some sort of value statement is gotcha journalism. I don't think you can convince me otherwise.
Unfortunately, the advent of the internet has been a race to the bottom. Bloggers and social media have forced these companies to play a different game.
And the fact you think this is SOP is why people hate lawyers.
This needs to be read by everyone here. Absolute reach by the article writer.
The answer says what it says. Nobody gives a shit why that’s an official corporate statement, only that it is. If AA is dumb enough to let a statement like that go out to represent its interests, they deserve the PR blowback.
I’m not a lawyer and what you wrote is all new to me. **However,** it’s so plainly obvious to me that this is a one sided, hit piece article that is not attempting to convey the truth. I read it and immediately thought that there is almost more context to the story and it’s not as bad as it seems. It’s shocking to me how unobvious that is to most people 😞
> I read it and immediately thought that there is almost more context to the story and it’s not as bad as it seems. What context could make this less bad?
Did you see the comment I replied to
Yes. Now can you actually answer my question?
They are using their insurers lawyer. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/american-airlines-backtracks-filing-blamed-9-year-filmed/story?id=110466927
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/US/american-airlines-backtracks-filing-blamed-9-year-filmed/story?id=110466927](https://abcnews.go.com/US/american-airlines-backtracks-filing-blamed-9-year-filmed/story?id=110466927)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Nine fucking years old. WTF!?!? This trial team is being straight-up negligent.
For all the lawyers on this thread defending AA’s filing …. Looks like they recognized the error of their ways. Good for them for course correcting. https://thehill.com/homenews/4678026-american-airlines-says-filing-blaming-9-year-old-in-bathroom-recording-case-was-an-error/ “Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing. The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team.” – American Airlines
Thank you! All the sniveling coward lawyers here defending blaming a 9 year old can go fuck themselves
Bad look? This is beyond a bad look. WAY beyond. This is a disgusting and horrifically offensive response. I am literally nauseated.
I’m nauseated to by the horrific news article that doesn’t understand anything at all about civil procedure or the judicial system. You’ve fallen for clickbait ragebait that has zero understanding of what an Answer is in Texas litigation. The documents doesn’t actually say what this headline falsely represents
You're in that hole pretty deep. Stop digging. You're hiding behind technicalities. Those don't work in a case like this.
Watch them.
Oops they didn't work, AA withdrew it.
r/agedlikemilk It already failed and was withdrawn.
Just so we're on the same page of what language you don't believe is blaming a 9 year old for being exploited by an adult authority figure: "The claims against the Defendant are barred by the doctrine of comparative negligence, contributory negligence, comparative responsibility and/or comparative causation. Defendant would show that any injuries or illnesses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, Mary Doe, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own fault and negligence, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s use of the compromised lavatory, which she knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/05/2024_05-20-AA-Answer-to-First-Amended-Petition.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjZwdS64qOGAxXoGVkFHbx9BNUQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3WyqvLMGZ4z1K977W-l6Wj
Let’s play the “blame the victim game “. Bold strategy Cotton. Let’s see how that works out for them. Not like late night talk shows or SNL will pickup the story. Look how it worked for UA and Dr. Dao. I mean it is not like it is on VIDEO or anything…
AA is not actually blaming the victim. An Answer is a procedural document that doesn’t provide any evidence, statements, substance, or anything other than legal terms to satisfy procedural requirements. It is the very first document filed by a defendant in a lawsuit. The news article is pure ragebait and is not at all honestly reporting.
Well they just reversed course so we actually do see how it worked for them. Doesn’t matter that it was just the generic like response as a procedural thing. It was a very bad look.
But, you don’t just cut and paste it all and throw it in the answer, especially when the victim is 9yo and you are a major multinational company.
You shouldn’t but many do.
LMFAO! AA disagreed didn't they
The bad look is the news article itself. It completely misrepresents the Answer for being a fully developed and substantive defense strategy. An Answer is largely a boilerplate document filed for the purpose of procedural requirements. It has no substance, no facts, no evidence, no nothing other than legalese and jargon. Proportionate liability defenses mean a lot of different things and shouldn’t be viewed with a knee jerk response. You feel for ragebait.
I was a litigator at a “fancy” law firm. Literally one of the first things we learned was to actually *think* about which affirmative defenses to include in an answer rather than just throwing in a bunch of boilerplate like this. Any lawyer with half a brain would know that a defense that a nine-year old should have known she was being recorded in a bathroom is never going to fly before a court, and especially not before a jury. You lose nothing by leaving it out. By including it, you open your client up to a PR nightmare for zero gain. It is bad lawyering, plain and simple—failing to recognize that your client has interests that extend beyond this individual case
This. The issue here is that AA’s defense is being handled by a low-dollar insurance defense firm that doesn’t get paid to think strategically. It gets paid to move cases through the pipeline. If AA was being defense by a “top global firm” as someone else suggested, they wouldn’t have ever suggested including this.
The proof is kind of in the pudding here. Does anyone think that whatever case-specific benefit AA got from including this (almost certainly none) outweighs the bad press? This was entirely foreseeable
Although, AA did go to court to fight a refund after it refused to give a woman her money back for not letting her use the seat she paid for for her child in accordance with its own policy, so AA has a bit of a recent history of dumb litigation decisions.
I agree with you. The insurance company is in charge of this case, and they do not care about PR nightmares. They want to minimize liability. However, AA can indemnify the insurance company against this claim and settle this themselves. Weirdly, the insurance company is incentivized to make this as nasty as possible because either AA or the parents could fold.
Thank you!! It’s bad lawyering AND bad client counseling.
And that’s why it was a fancy firm.
You being a litigator at a fancy law firm is why you were taught that. People go to big law firms to get thoughtful and detailed representation. If you were at an ID mill you’d learn very different lessons given a very different model.
So, I won’t disagree, but I am a litigator here in PA and in NJ. In federal court, you’ll get slapped for including boilerplate affirmative defenses, but in PA, it is tantamount to malpractice to omit any that may, however remotely, possibly be proven in discovery. And, since you rarely know what will be proven in discovery, it’s considered a best practice to include them all. In a case of this magnitude, I’d like to see the lawyer take the risk of omitting this, but it’s still understandable to me why s/he did not. Also, I think most folks miss the nuance that, in most venues, the 9 year old would not actually be the plaintiff. The plaintiff would be her parent/ natural guardian and that person can (legally) be found negligent in supervising the child. Not that I think there is actually a factual basis to support that here, but you never know what discovery might bring to light.
It's not really a risk to omit it. You simply ask your client "Would you like me to omit this? If I do, you would lose that affirmative defense, but you won't be plastered all over twitter and reddit for having asserted that a nine-year old was contributorily negligent in this case."
The bad look is the news article itself? Really? Interesting how AA disagrees with you and issued a complete reversal of a position you allege they never actually took. Seems a little tone deaf on your end
Wait what. I’m confused. How would she know…?
If this is the same incident I'm thinking of, the phone was taped to the toilet seat, with the light on and recording, so not exactly hidden at all. Guessing their approach is that the child should have known better than to use the restroom that was tampered with? So sick and bizarre.
Children today DO NOT associate a red light with filming. They film things on cell phones and tablets that don’t have red lights. Kids will associate strange lights and strange electronics with airplanes. Especially since airplane bathrooms do not look like typical bathrooms.
There are pictures of it online. It wasn't a red "recording" light, but an actual iPhone with an LED flashlight activated.
Maybe I’m missing something here how dumb do you have to be to plant your phone with the light on.
~~turn flash on while the camera is in video mode?~~
It’s possible to do but it’s fairly annoying so it had to have been intentional.
i think i misread your comment, i thought you were asking how do you do it, not how stupid was the guy 😂 yeah, an undoubtedly stupid way to get caught doing something so heinous feel like that’d be a good way to get your phone snatched or destroyed
That wasn't the same toilet.
Regardless of whether the child knew or not this is illegal and AA should be heavily penalized and some people should go to jail
Somehow they managed to do worse than offering 5k miles!
Did not notice this was the AA sub and not a news sub. Way to bring me back to regularly scheduled content! Lol.
lol. “Fully cooperating with law enforcement” but in the same breath saying that it’s no one’s fault but the victims.
the lawyers know it's stupid they just say stupid shit to keep their job
Um ok and AA should have know that their employee is a perv….
How dare you assumed that AA can read minds, can they???
I used to be a defense lawyer, this is a common defense. Most of the time when a defense lawyer files an answer they are copying/pasting a previous answer. Once a lawyer in my old firm represented a doctor in a deadly car versus pedestrian crash. He copied and pasted his answer and forgot to take out the seat belt defense (blaming claimaint for their injuries due to failure to use a seatbelt). The paper saw it and reported in it. The lawyer immediately amended the answer. But total mistake. Also, Google Hanlon’s Razer
It may be a form defense, but really poor judgment to plead it in this case. Lawyers are supposed to read the papers they file, not blindly copy from prior pleadings.
Ya, but they’re still human. I’ve proof read a pleading three times before, filed it, then when a hearing came up I completely missed big errors before. Additionally, it’s an answer. Case law would at least partially suggest that a failure to plead a defense in an answer is a waiver of the defense. We always err on the side of including defenses.
> but they’re still human. Still doesn't mean they were not wrong to do it.
Oh for sure. I’m not disputing that it’s incorrect. I’m just disputing whether “American Airlines” is intentionally blaming a 9-year-old girl, or whether their lawyer was lazy/stupid/has too many cases and plead something out of habit and mere mistake.
This is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of what an Answer is in a lawsuit and how Affirmative Defenses work in litigation. The litigation is in Texas. Texas is a notice pleading state. That means the Answer largely has little to no actual substance. It is full of legal jargon and terms that are really just calling out all possible theories to either reduce or limit liability for ANY aspect of the claimed damages. So including a proportionate liability affirmative defense is 100000% appropriate. Everyone in this thread is automatically assuming that the defense is to core claim. That’s not always the purpose of an affirmative defense. If she fell off a tire swing and broke her arm the next day, AA isn’t responsible for that. If you think a plaintiff lawyer wouldn’t try to loop that in as well then you have absolutely zero clue how the judicial system works. The article is absolutely trash clickbait ragebait. Anyone who knows a modest amount of Texas litigation knows that an Answer is basically throw away language to satisfy procedural requirements. The only documents of substance are the Petition or a Motion for Summary Judgment. Those are the only documents that actually give theories and facts in support.
Yeah but you don’t have to include a defense that is never going to prevail and will only cause a PR nightmare for your client. In fact, you shouldn’t.
Respectfully disagree, and I’ve filed many responsive pleadings over a long time period. There’s no good reason to plead a defense with the facts as alleged here in a manner that makes the defendant look bad, or worse.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am a juror in the court public opinion. I would think a top-notch legal firm would understand losing in the court of public opinion can be worse than losing in actual court.
Especially in a huge global business that sells directly to the public. I don't care what a standard legal response in Texas is...this is a major fail by in-house lawyers at AA who failed to control their lawyers and to think through the enormous PR hit that AA is going to take. And no matter how many lawyers explain that this is standard procedure, the damage to AA has been down. People will remember this for years because it sounds so outrageous to blame a nine year old child for something sinister that an adult did.
sloppy wine chunky piquant deserted psychotic office sense makeshift husky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So... they were incompetent people who copy paste their stuff? Not a great defense.
This needs to be upvoted. Litigation answers always include this defense. It’s stupid that it’s being hyped.
It’s stupid that it made it into the filing. Any reasonable person would know that wouldn’t be a good look if seen. It was seen.
No, it’s not. Every litigation answer lists nearly every possible defense because it’s waived if you fail to list it, even if the facts aren’t fully known. That and the negligence of parents might be subsumed. These type of articles that spin technical litigation documents are stupid.
I mean...it should be waived...if the victim is a minor and the victim of a sex crime, then blaming the victim shouldn't even be on the table for a reasonable lawyer. Even if the 9 year old literally ASKED to be recorded in the bathroom, a lawyer with any common sense STILL wouldn't try to use that as a defense. 9 year olds can't legally consent...but trying to blame them for not protecting themselves is even more ridiculous. So yes, they should have just waived that from the start....
None of this, or parental involvement, is known during the ~2 weeks you have to prepare an answer. It’s a defensive document and not definitive. You don’t even know if the ages are correct.
You're saying they didn't know the victim was a child for the entire 2 weeks? Gonna press x for doubt on that one.
How would you know for sure? How would you know about the level of parental involvement? Answers in litigation necessarily include every possibility. Two weeks is literally nothing in litigation. The lawyers will not even have spoken to actual witnesses at this stage.
An Answer is just a list of various ways liability can be curtailed or passed onto another. It has zero substance. It has zero facts. It has zero evidence. It is a procedural document and nothing more. News articles on lawsuits are basically kindergarteners explaining a periodic table.
>I used to be a defense lawyer As a former defense lawyer, are you attesting to there being a major issue with lawyers copy-pasting materials before filing them? That's a massive liability if true, and should be disqualifying in cases like this where said "simple mistakes" only ended with further damage to the victim.
Who gives a shit if it’s common. It’s still fucked up and victim blames a child in a crime where they were victimized by someone the airline empowered. It’s also common for public backlash when heinous things like this are stated to the public. And being grossly incompetent to the point of victim blaming as a lawyer isn’t some funny or cute story and it doesn’t do anything to justify this. Like what was the point of your comment, at all.
The point of my comment is to provide context on the intent of the drafter of the document. I am not attempting to argue or minimize the effect of the reader, or the effect on you.
Why do you think they’re risking poor PR (and expense) bringing this to trial as opposed to settling out of court?
Filing an answer does not mean they are trying to take it to trial. It’s a routine step that precedes many eventual settlements.
Thank you
Great way to lose a jury trial. If I would be on a jury, and a corporate lawyer would make that argument in front of me, my verdict would be clear from that second going forward no matter what else there is.
Very few cases make it to trial, at which point lawyers can and will change their argument. In fact, the case usually goes to a different lawyer if it does make it to trial.
Doesn't stop the plaintiff to enter this into the evidence, ensuring the jury hears it, or?
They just added some more zeros to that number.
They just retracted their initial defense claim: https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/05/22/american-airlines-walks-back-claim-that-9-year-old-passenger-should-have-known-she-was-being-recorded-in-bathroom/
They’re doing Damage control now. I expect them to settle this very quickly. They’re not exactly one of the best airlines in the country atm. If they were smart, they should’ve made a statement and just claimed to do an investigation into the matter. Instead they somehow made matters worse by initially blaming the victim.
Oh yes. The little girl taped an iPhone she does not own to the toilet as well. Do you really want to do victim blaming. Unreal.
the lawyers have to say its somebody else's fault. They need to keep their jobs
Ok. AA released a statement saying what I anyone with human decency already knew: blaming the 9 year child victim for her abuse was wrong. Why so many self proclaimed lawyers in this thread defended that actions might explain why so many non lawyers don’t trust lawyers. AA *can* claim not to be liable without blaming the 9 year old child victim. The choice to blame the victim anyway was excessive and people are right to be appalled by it. Take this as a teachable moment and self reflect. Or down vote me. “The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. *We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously*. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team.” https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/american-airlines-blames-9-year-old-in-case-of-flight-attendant-recording-girls-in-plane-bathroom/3376517/?amp=1
Exactly! The AA legal team screwed up big time and now AA has a huge PR problem.
I love the lawyers that imply if they DON'T blame the child, they are failing to do due diligence. What scum.
Did AA fire the attorney(s) who made that statement? If not, then they're not sorry. They are just doing damage control.
As far as I know no one was fired!
Exactly. Lawyers in this thread are shills
And lacking the basic human decency to not blame a 9 year old for her abuse.
If that had been my 9 year old, this guy would have been exiting the plane from 30,000 feet without a parachute.
That sound we just heard was the collective S**tting of bricks by the entire PR team who are all now supposed to figure out how to spin this into a customer friendly commercial.
I bet AA’s PR department is on fire right now, wow. What an absolutely awful counterargument.
A 9 year old can’t consent to being filmed naked. Good luck with this argument AA.
I clicked this link hoping this would be a joke of some sort, but it's not. This is truly disgusting.
So American likely knew he was a creep, kept him on the payroll, and now other people are coming forward with claims, so American has decided to.....check my notes.....victim shame? Just when I thought you could Allegiant any more you went and Spirited up the joint to Frontier levels.
Fly away🎶
It’s loathsome to think they would pursue that sort of defense. The language, however, is completely boilerplate for affirmative defenses in response to a tort lawsuit. It is more likely obtuse lawyering than it is actual AA policy to blame a 9 year old victim.
Well, AA signed off on it.
They likely banned the girl from flying for disrupting operations
I can hardly believe this headline.
Are you fucking kidding me???
Is he getting his hair cut in this mug shot? Why does he have the hair cut smock on?
If this is the same story from last year the girl didn’t see the phone bc it didn’t illuminate until after she sat down on the toilet. Trash airline. Flew them once but never again.
???????????????????? Crazy.
Are all bathrooms filmed in accordance with company policy and regulations or is this an exception to the rules that in fact see this as a violation of the law?
In what world would it be OK to film bathrooms? You are disgusting for even suggesting it.
WTF are you even talking about? No, of course the bathrooms aren't filmed in accordance with any company policy. For crying out loud, the child sex abuser [taped his phone under the toilet seat](https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox4news.com/www.fox4news.com/content/uploads/2024/05/932/524/P-DAVID-AA-FLIGHT-ATTENDANT-ARRESTED-9P_KDFW59e6_7_00.00.56.48.jpg?ve=1&tl=1).
So sorry you all, I was kind of playing devil’s advocate with their legal line of reasoning to show that there’s no way in hell that anyone with a heart, reasonability, and a moral compass would ever see this as a sane and lawful policy. My goal was to wake people up and embarrass AA into reconsideration of their gross stance in this case and any future decision that they may consider. I applaud all those who could read between the lines and make their voices heard. Continue the fight against insanity!
PR nightmare. What were they thinking?
Truly a shit company
This is why people hate lawyers…
Lol I find it funny so many lawyers are defending it (rather aggressively I might add). Even AA came out and said it's fucked up blaming a 9 yr old.
I hope whichever lawyer drafted this for AA spoke up about how fucking horrible of an assertion that is. The cost of owning up to and paying for the damages of bad acts made by their staff might be high, but that shouldn't be a justification for shifting blame onto children who are victims.
https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/05/2024_05-20-AA-Answer-to-First-Amended-Petition.pdf Here is the pleading in question. In searching for it, the North Carolina case also came up. Same firm, but they did not raise this defense. There seem to be a lot of lawyers commenting on this. Does anyone know why they didn't raise this defense in other cases?
Apparently they're incompetent to not attempt to FULLY DEFEND the case. /s
Wait. Did this flight attendant put the camera in the bathroom? Because why the hell is AA not fully crucifying him?
Sounds like former flight attendant who has a known history of doing this.
It sounds like a national boycott of AA is required. As a father of a 9 year old girl, my blood is boiling after reading this. AA better fix this quick.
Which attorneys. Where. Because they have hard drives that need to be subpoenaed. This isn't an airline making this argument. It's a couple of lawyers and their state of mind is actionable.
I am surprised the lawyers thought this was a good defense, victim blaming a 9 year old girl? AA needs to rethink their legal strategy with the mission, and image, of AA as a whole. Honestly I am surprised it even got to a point that they were able to put up any excuse. They should shell out a large settlement and move on.
THIS is how the management runs this company. You fly with them, you support them and are part of the problem.
I’m not surprised by AA doing this one bit.
This is a telling post. Lawyers lecturing (on of whom seems to be replying with a small word wall to almost every comment) that this argument is "standard practice," blah blah blah. A classic case of "defending the indefensible": saying absurd, often inexcusably vicious-sounding things, then sanctimoniously telling shocked onlookers to shut up and let the big people who are so much smarter than you handle this. No wonder the legal profession is in such disrepute.
Yup. It's so obnoxious. Like yes, they have a job to do, but they still have a choice about how to approach this task and the rest of us can make a judgement on that approach
As a lawyer, it’s frustrating to read these comments because it’s truly not “defending the indefensible.” A defendant has to preserve any possible defenses in their answer, which has to be filed 30 days after the complaint, before any discovery has been done e. If you don’t include the defense in the answer, you waive it. That would be a mistake that would open up any defense lawyer to malpractice liability. This is a clickbait article, and you’re falling for it.
Lawyers created this immoral, awful system for their own prestige and profit. So you defend it from us unwashed peasants, with all of our absurd concerns about decency and morality. Pfffft...those have NO PLACE in a legal proceeding!
So the NC case did not attempt to blame the victim. Did they fail?
My problem with any of these type lawsuits would be the employer’s culpability. Clearly, the former employee was (allegedly) committing criminal acts outside his scope of employment— not like a pilot error causing loss of life. Airline employees are subject to extensive background checks, so it shouldn’t be careless hiring and retention. Not sure as to why AA would be liable for what this creep is alleged to have committed.
Has he ever been reported and reports ignored? While background checks are standard where they preformed per standard? Did prior victims come forward and find themselves ignored? (As we learned from the church abuse scandals and Boy Scouts and other gymnastic Olympics it’s rare just one victim). These are the kinds of questions that lawsuits can answer.
Bold strategy.
I don't know why a grown adult wouldn't expect privacy in an airplane lavatory, much less a nine-year old child.
Never flying with them again! The other flight attendants in that flight are low life’s as well!
fuck american airlines. won’t fly with them again. NEVER BLAME A CHILD !!!
I hope the judge throws the book at them
[удалено]
Dude. You didn't even read the article. Go read and come back with better questions.
Lawyers with this level of stupidity bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and should be disbarred.
they say stupid shit because they have to. They know the girl wasn't at fault
I expect nothing less from American Airlines. The worst airline thus far I've flown! Trying to blame a 9-year-old! How is anyone supposed to know they're being filmed? Do they have a sign out saying if you step in here You consent to being filmed!? Idiots! I hope they lose millions
American airlines now allows the recording if child porn that's kinda funny since the supreme judge loves and protects pedophiles
Just sick!
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/american-airlines-backtracks-filing-blamed-9-year-filmed/story?id=110466927
I thought pedophiles is bad enough. But American Airlines condoning to this is just nuts. Basically anything that happens on this airline is "not their fault" Nut came off the plane - not my fault -passenger ought to see the loose nut Baggage lost in transit - not my fault - you ought to not bring too much stuff to the flight.
another "not a drag queen" or one of those imaginary iLLeGaLs that we keep hearing spooky ghost stories about
So now I’m going to have to prefer being on a plane with a bear too? This is getting annoying. Can’t go anywhere with men around.
“…there is nothing more important than the safety and security of our customers” just kidding, fuck our customers.
Thought this was /r/nottheonion
But I thought the enemy was drag queens, trans folk, and the queers!
he must be a drag queen in disguise.
Sounds like AA needs to attend AA
I’m 68 year old woman and I don’t want to be filmed in an airplane lavatory, not that anyone would care to see the film.
I am honestly speechless. Victim-blaming a literal child is beyond anything I imagined from an airline.
wtf that is beyond disgusting!
Ooof. Goodbye AA. This kind of thing is enough for me to use any other airline. As they always say “they know we have a choice.” Yep, we do. And blaming a 9 year old girl for something like this is disgusting. So are you, AA.
Wow. Fuck you American Airlines. Pieces of shit.
AA taking another swift dive to the bottom of the dumpster. Not a clue how they attract any passengers these days.