...and this is American Airlines' defense:

American Airlines is blaming a 9-year-old girl for being filmed by one of their flight attendants in the plane's bathroom.

Estes Carter Thompson is accused of recording multiple girls by taping his phone to plane toilet seats.

In a new court filing, American Airlines says the young girl should have known that there was a recording device on the toilet.

"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," AA said.

"She knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device."

Thompson is accused of having videos of girls aged 7, 9, 11 and 14.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1793029248900276343

The "airline" isn't blaming the child, some bottom feeding piece of shit attorney is.

He's probably smugly spouting "law" at the parents.

Well, no. No legal argument is made by an attorney that wasn't pre discussed with a client...at least on the defense side. I've done defense work for 32 years, and never did I or any defense attorney of my acquaintance would make a legal move of that magnitude without client authority.

quote:

Originally posted by Windhover:
Well, no. No legal argument is made by an attorney that wasn't pre discussed with a client...at least on the defense side. I've done defense work for 32 years, and never did I or any defense attorney of my acquaintance would make a legal move of that magnitude without client authority.

There’s also a 99% chance that it’s the parents and/or plaintiff’s counsel that has forced the issue by rejecting AA’s pre-lit settlement offers. Believe me, AA did not want this to go to suit, but it’s not up to them unless they’re willing to give into extortion-level settlement demands.

I’m also an insurance defense attorney and disagree somewhat with Windhover. I have been involved in some very high profile suits, including a couple of federal class actions. I’m telling you this isn’t necessarily AA (or their attorney) being an asshole. In many (if not most) jurisdictions, if the defendant’s initial Answer doesn’t raise any and all possible defenses (including comparative or contributory negligence), the attorney may very well be committing malpractice. It doesn’t mean they’re necessarily pursuing that angle. Wait for discovery to wrap up and see what motions are filed.

-Rob

Disgusting. The attorney, the airline, and the flight attendant.

It’s your fault I stole your lawnmower. You should have bought a crappier one.

As long as the guy doing the recording is headed to jail, I’m not overly fussed about the parents and the airlines arguing over money.

- Bret

I’d be ok with the guy getting MANY years in prison and the airline ADMIT their employee was a criminal turd. This “it’s the little girls fault” will get them extremely bad press. If the other big airlines wanted, they could fold the unadvisable attitude into their own commercials. AA would take a beating.

The parents should be going for damages from the pervo, not the airline. It’s not like they knew or tolerated the behavior.

^^^They won't get anything from the 'pervo', they're going after the deep pocket, the employer!

That’s my point. The airline should say they’re not paying anything. It’s not like they knew the guy was doing it. But to blame the child is not the tack to take in court.

To blame the child for not knowing better...makes them culpable as all hell. They might as well have admitted responsibility and started throwing out settlement offers.

They should be ashamed. Clearly they are not.

F. Them.

Up the kazoo and out the tops of their heads.

Please please please pick me for the jury that this lawyer comes in with a blame a 9 year old tactic…

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
Please please please pick me for the jury that this lawyer comes in with a blame a 9 year old tactic…

Please please please pick me for the guy that sells gives the father his choice of ammo for, uh, target practice because we all need to keep our skills up.

It's interesting how many videos come up on youtube of a father protecting his daughter. Sometimes after the fact.

Cool it

Just speculating. Understood.

This is a standard defense that is waived if it’s not pled. That said, in a case like this the lawyer should have discussed with AA the optics of blaming the victim for their employee’s predatory behavior. No way I would recommend it but I’d have a duty to raise it if I was instructed to do so.

Regardless, I’d bet a cold beverage that this defense will not be argued at trial.

American is feeling the or realizing belatedly that they/their lawyers pulled a really dumbass move:

https://www.dallasnews.com/bus...-filmed-in-bathroom/


But as befalls our society, nobody will be shown the door for said move.

quote:

Originally posted by BGULL:
American is feeling the or realizing belatedly that they/their lawyers pulled a really dumbass move:

https://www.dallasnews.com/bus...-filmed-in-bathroom/


But as befalls our society, nobody will be shown the door for said move.

Thanks for the useless paywall.

quote:

Originally posted by BGULL:
American is feeling the or realizing belatedly that they/their lawyers pulled a really dumbass move:

https://www.dallasnews.com/bus...-filmed-in-bathroom/


But as befalls our society, nobody will be shown the door for said move.

I was able to get beyond the paywall and read the article by using reader view on my iPhone.

“Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing,” an American Airlines spokesperson said in a statement. “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.”

Sounds like it was the AA’s insurance company that called the shots on that decision.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:
This is a standard defense that is waived if it’s not pled. That said, in a case like this the lawyer should have discussed with AA the optics of blaming the victim for their employee’s predatory behavior. No way I would recommend it but I’d have a duty to raise it if I was instructed to do so.

Regardless, I’d bet a cold beverage that this defense will not be argued at trial.

This is almost certainly correct. Also, if the parent filed suit on behalf of the minor, this defense could be referring to the parents for failing to supervise their child. Regardless, AA or their counsel should read the room. In my 20yrs of civil defense litigation, only about 10% of clients pre-approve the affirmative defenses and many of these are reviewed by paralegals or non-lawyer insurance adjusters.

Whether by accident or design, huge black eye for sure.