Judge to weigh whether WTC owners can seek money from airlines over 9/11

[happyslug]

22. That is NOT the law, the FAA can require something, but that is all

The FAA can REQUIRE things for planes, but that does NOT mean the Airline can NOT install other items that the FAA does not require (in this case locks on doors to the Cockpits). Given that such locks were Recommended, that the FAA did not require them does NOT relive the airline of liability due to their failure to install such locks.

The classic case is from the 1932s where Federal Judge Learned Hand ruled that since an accident could have been avoided if a barge had a radio, the failure to have a radio is grounds for being liable due to the damage done by the barge. The fact that most barges did NOT have radios OR that radios were NOT required by any state of Federal Law was NOT a defense to liability for failing to have a radio. Hand's rationale was simple, how else are you to force people to adopt new technology unless you make it clear that they are liable for NOT have the new technology once such new technology does prevent accidents or other harm. Please note, the radio in question were radios to receive weather reports and other news items NOT to transmit messages. By 1932 such radios were common in most people's home let alone ocean going barges.

The same rationale here, locked Cockpits had been recommended since the 1970s and that period's hijackings, thus the fact that the FAA did not require it does NOT relieve the Airlines of fault for NOT having them. The fact that the FAA never required such locks is NOT a defense, given that such locked Cockpits would have prevented any take over of the airlines AND thus any of the airlines hitting any buildings.

More on Learned Hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand

The actual decision in that case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8197801632769400398&q=60+F.2d+737&hl=en&as_sdt=2002