Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

machineguncomic t1_jcmoh5e wrote

Boeing has argued that this is speculative, and that damages shouldn’t be awarded for “pre-impact fright and terror.” An expert in human factors and aerospace physiology hired by Boeing countered the above by arguing the following:

“While passengers undoubtedly perceived the flight as scary, humans have a tendency to hold on to hope and not expect the worst. Ultimately, it is impossible to know the subjective experience of each occupant.”

Let's split the difference. We'll say half held onto hope and half were expecting certain death. So if you owe 100 billion for the pain, cut in half they owe 50 billion.

You just have to choose the correct starting number so that when it's cut in half it is still the correct punitive number.

49

squishopotamus t1_jcmqyjp wrote

"Hired by Boeing"

13

Skyhawkson t1_jcp2vvx wrote

That's how litigation works, you can hire an expert witness to testify as to some part of the case (and your opponent can cross-examine them). For example, a car accident may have an auto mechanic testify as to the poor maintenance of the brakes that may have contributed to the crash.

As with all court witness testimony, it's up to the jury to decide whether to believe it or not.

4

westdl t1_jcnkeoa wrote

Disgusting and if this doesn’t work, they’ll go for the Schrödinger’s cat defense: Once the door on the plane closed, the passengers and crew were neither alive nor dead and therefore Boeing is not at fault.

9