against presumably boeing and other entities, because it s a boeing plane. but we don t know if it was there was a defect in the plane. we know nothing how the accident happened. but smacked down by a judge not because they were heartless. they got smacked down because of a technicality. well, yes. and i think the bigger issue is, you can t sue somebody just because they made an airplane. you have to prove negligence. don t you also have to prove the jurisdiction, mel? i don t understand are you you just willy-nilly pick a country and go for it. i object to us saying all lawyers are ambulance chasers. there is a totally different perspective i have about this. in an international disaster on this scale, passengers are not only the survivors of the passengers and the crew, by the way, are not only dealing with their grief. this is a massively complicated lawsuit to bring. first of all, you have the montreal convention, which entitles them to up to $174,000. which is discre
right now the families are being misled from very unethical u.s. lawyers. reporter: justin green has tried aviation cases for 17 years. green says he is aware of multiple u.s. law firms who are in asia right now solace sitting family members from flight 370. these lawyers launched within days, maybe even hours of a crash. ambulance chasers, in essence, but they are ambulance chasers on a global scale. reporter: how high are the stakes? perhaps billions of dollars in cases that could potentially be brought against malaysia airlines and boeing, among others. but a legal victory is by no means guaranteed. and there are many legal challenges that grieving family members may not understand. they can recover some moneys, 100 to 160,000 with a death
into action. these lawyers launched within days, maybe even hours, of a crash. ambulance chasers, in essence. but they re ambulance chasers on a global scale. so just how high are the stakes here. and who might family members of those on board the plane be able to sue? and for how much? and by the way, how many of those ambulance chasers are getting nowhere near those families.
there s no issue of fact and it needs to be dismissed. here there s no evidence. there s no wreckage, debris, that can be analyzed to say, this equipment was faulty or anyone did anything wrong or breached their duty to passengers. no offense to this lawyer. i don t her from adam. struck me as an ambulance chaser. that s fine, but we don t know much, and until we do, maybe down the road we ll have grounds to know whether there was a terror incident, whether it was a catastrophic event. we don t know that now. so filing a lawsuit on a hunch that we re going to you bet we ll find out what is going on. well, like, when people are involved in accidents, there are attorneys who pay to get the names of those involved, and they ll send out letters to try to get business, to sue whoever, be the car or other driver or whomever, and they re known as ambulance chasers, and unfortunately you always have attorneys trying to get in as
anything to do with it. we don t know that but they will try to prove it. if you are a lawyer trust me you will try to argue anything. these ambulance chasers will try to do that. do you know who is going to bring them into the case is probably malaysia airlines. they will boeing it wasn t us or our pilot. evidence is it was the boeing aircraft. it is hart because the black boxes we talked about earlier will probably never be found. is there a blanket like the international treaty is 175 k is there something in the united states on top of that. prove your case in the united states. no presumption in your favor. if you crash in kansas on a coast to coast there is no blanket thing you have to sue the airlines. yeah. the airlines usually settle, right? yes. and it s usually hundreds of millions of dollars. it s not a small number. it s huge? yeah. because somebody is at fault. it s, you know, concept of the airplanes just don t fall out of the sky for no reason at all.