NTSB investigator examines missing door plug area on Boeing 737 MAX 9 involved in Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 blowout
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
By Daniel Laurence
Partner

Seattle, WA – Today, a Washington Superior Court judge rejected Boeing’s attempt to dismiss claims for “outrage” brought by 38 passengers who were on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 when a door plug blew off in mid-flight early last year. The court also denied similar motions filed by Alaska Airlines and Spirit AeroSystems.

“To prove outrage, the misconduct must be intentional or reckless, and be so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civil community.  Those who suffer severe emotional distress are entitled to compensation,” explained Daniel Laurence of The Stritmatter Firm.

The passengers argued that the misconduct leading to the door plug blowout was extreme in nature.  An airplane needs to be especially safe. Manufacturers not only must build reasonably safe products, but are also liable for intentional misconduct. The passengers pointed out that failing the basic job of putting bolts on doors so they won’t fall off during flight is not just a manufacturing defect, and flying passengers despite clear and repeated warnings that a pressure leak may exist is not merely negligence.– Rather, those actions are outrageous.

Last August, the NTSB confirmed that the four retention bolts needed to secure the door plug to Flight 1282’s 737-MAX 9 airframe were removed and not replaced during a production delay. Boeing had sought to correct Spirit’s manufacturing error and Boeing failed to follow its own documentation and inspection procedures.   In addition, the NTSB found the oxygen generators on the plane were defective, consistent with passenger reports that some were not working.  Alaska Airlines admits that it knew of three auto-pressure system warnings in that aircraft prior to the January 5, 2024 incident.  But the airline contends those warnings are irrelevant. Nevertheless, the airline restricted that aircraft from extended range operations so the aircraft could remain closer to one of Alaska Airlines’ maintenance repair stations in the continental United States “in case a control system issue were to reoccur.” Out of concerns raised by those warnings, Alaska Airlines had scheduled the aircraft for inspection but it did not occur before the blow-out. The NTSB has disclosed that physical evidence shows the door plug was moving during the 154 flights Alaska Airlines made before the plug flew off the airliner at an altitude of about 16,000 feet.

Attorney Laurence stated, “The defendants tried to carve this serious claim out of the lawsuit and failed.  Our client passengers plan to expose the culture of corporate greed that Boeing and the others allowed to override aircraft safety.  The court’s order allows us to get one step closer to presenting all of these disturbing facts to a jury.”

The Stritmatter Firm is based in Seattle and Hoquiam, WA and is nationally recognized for representing victims of wrongful death, serious personal injuries, and civil rights lawsuits. The legal team for this case includes Daniel Laurence, Karen Koehler, Andrew Ackley, Melanie Nguyen, and Debbie Silberman. Paralegal: Patti Sims.

About the Author
Over 35 years of law practice, my hallmarks – curiosity, craft and compassion – have become my clients’ advantage. I grew up debating at dinner time, exploring the outdoors, dwelling in foreign lands, building model airplanes and doing experiments. I studied the shapes of machines, bodies, plants and molecules. I worshiped the mechanical dream machine that was my bike. I have handled catastrophic product liability cases with a focus on defects in aircraft, other motor vehicles and industrial machines, as well as road design, insurance bad faith, medical and legal malpractice. I have put my interests, skills and experience to work recovering millions for injured people by trying and settling difficult and complex cases to achieve the best possible results consistent with client goals.