American Airlines is literally victim blaming a 9 year-old girl for being recorded by one of their employees in the aircraft lav. This has to be like a 25 year-old incel lawyer. I sincerely hope they stand in front of a jury and use this defense.
In a statement released Wednesday, the airlines disavowed the legal argument.
“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 [Wednesday] morning,” the airline said in a statement. “We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously.”
I was talking to my wife about this tonight and I said: "Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good argument, as soon as hit the press I can't believe they didn't immediately come out and blame outside council and disavow it." Apparently that is exactly what they did.I saw a more updated article that said they are dropping that defense: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/22/metro/nine-year-old-girl-videotaped-american-airlines/
The attorney that proposed this defense is an idiot. 1) It's an absurd argument, and 2) when you have such a large, public client, you also need to consider the PR angle of what a defense would look like. This lawyer failed both points.
I doubt this will ever see trial. There will be a confidential settlement.I was talking to my wife about this tonight and I said: "Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good argument, as soon as hit the press I can't believe they didn't immediately come out and blame outside council and disavow it." Apparently that is exactly what they did.
I wounder if the plaintiffs can still bring it up at trial.
I would prefer if they stood in front of a bus.American Airlines is literally victim blaming a 9 year-old girl for being recorded by one of their employees in the aircraft lav. This has to be like a 25 year-old incel lawyer. I sincerely hope they stand in front of a jury and use this defense.
Uh, that was part of a line from a play written by Shakespeare, not the man's personal opinion.Fckn lawyers…just one of the many reasons why William Shakespeare was right…let’s kill the lawyers first.
Well, how many plays have been written about saving lawyers?Uh, that was part of a line from a play written by Shakespeare, not the man's personal opinion.
Dunno, but I assume you meant lines, not plays, right?Well, how many plays have been written about saving lawyers?
The context behind that line is that the people saying it want to overthrow the government. And if you're going to overthrow the government, first you're going to want to murder lawyers who understand the law and can hold people overthrowing the government accountable.Well, how many plays have been written about saving lawyers?
Idk, whichever. I wasn't aware lawyers was a group we were now interested in keeping alive.Dunno, but I assume you meant lines, not plays, right?
Idk, whichever. I wasn't aware lawyers was a group we were now interested in keeping alive.
Crassius was able to get the job done with every 10th, could start there. Though I don't mind the idea of them beating each other to death, now that I think about it.Seems like the world might be a better place without so many...
Let's line them all up...shoot every 3rd one. If that doesn't make them change their ways...do it again, this time, shoot every other lawyer...see if that works...repeat as needed.
Objection, your honor!Crassius was able to get the job done with every 10th, could start there. Though I don't mind the idea of them beating each other to death, now that I think about it.
A much better defense would have been, "We are required by DHS for security purposes to have cameras in all parts of the plane, including the lavatories." Although, that still would sound foul.I saw a more updated article that said they are dropping that defense: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/22/metro/nine-year-old-girl-videotaped-american-airlines/
The attorney that proposed this defense is an idiot. 1) It's an absurd argument, and 2) when you have such a large, public client, you also need to consider the PR angle of what a defense would look like. This lawyer failed both points.
Except there is no such requirement so that defense would fail quickly. So it’s not a much better defense.A much better defense would have been, "We are required by DHS for security purposes to have cameras in all parts of the plane, including the lavatories." Although, that still would sound foul.
That would be a way to quickly get sanctioned by the court and the Bar Association. You can't knowingly lie as a defense lawyer, and something like a regulation would be easy to verify.A much better defense would have been, "We are required by DHS for security purposes to have cameras in all parts of the plane, including the lavatories." Although, that still would sound foul.