1/87 AIRPLANE CRASH LITIGATION -Aviation

Costly and drawn-out court actions arising from aviation accidents in recent years. continue.

In Japan,. the Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission of the Transportation Ministry adhered to the draft of its final report on the August 12. 1985 JAL jumbo jet crash that, claimed 520 lives. The report placed the blame on Boeing corporation for what it called the "faulty repair of the jet's aft pressure bulkhead that resulted in the aircraft accident with 520 dead.

In what is considered the worst single aircraft accident in aviation history, JAL's 747 crashed into the side of the 1639 meter Mt. Osutaka in Gunma prefecture. Only four passengers--all women--of the 524 on board survived the accident.

The . draft reported that the repairs done on the plane after a 1977 accident

in Osaka airport were faulty and caused so-called "metal fatigue" in the aft pressure bulkhead of the jumbo jet, causing it to rupture. According to the commission's findings, the onrush of air from the pressurized cabin caused the rupture that in turn resulted in the tail cone, the upper half of the tail fin, and the rudder to blow away.

To get to the bottom of the disaster, the commission duplicated the fin, rudder and bulkhead of the giant airliner. Tests were conducted that destroyed a mockup of the ill-fated aircraft and the results carefully studied with the use of a large computer.

Doubts were previously expressed as to whether the air from the cabin was strong enough to blow away the three airplane parts following the bulkhead's rupture. The question came up after it was established that the air release door in the rear section of the jet bad opened, and the auxiliary power unit (APU) in the same section had blown away. As a large amount of air could have been lost in the process, the air couldn't have been forceful enough as to blow away the tail cone the upper half of the tail fin and the rudder.

Aside from the tests, the commission simulated the destruction process repeatedly with the help of a computer fed with vast amounts of design data provided by Boeing on the strength of different aircraft parts. After the investigation the commission concluded that all other things considered, the air from the pressurized cabin that gushed into the' tail end was strong enough to do the damage that happened to the giant liner. Adding to the strength of the conclusion was the analysis of the cockpit voice recorder, the commission said. The commission also dismissed theories that the rudder and fin were destroyed by what it termed "sympathetic vibrations" or that the jetliner was hit by a flying object just after it took off from Haneda airport.

The court litigation that followed the accident continues to haunt Japan Airlines, Boeing Company and the Transport Ministry. In May 1986, 28 more complaints were filed against the three by relatives of the crash victims, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 611. The 28, who filed their complaints with Tokyo District Court, are members of the August 12 Liaison Committee, an organization composed of family members of the crash fatalities. JAL, Boeing and the Transport Ministry were accused of "personal errors".

Named in the complaint were five JAL officials, including chairman Nichachiro Hanamura, two Boeing officials, four Transport Ministry officials and the former Transport minister Tokuo Yamashita. The complaint was similar to the ones filed by 583 member of the same committee.

In their complaints the committee member held the parties responsible for the crash: JAL for its failure to detect defects in the repair of the plane and failure to maintain the aircraft properly. Boeing, for defects in designing the airplane and for improper repairs, and the Transport Ministry for failure to supervise closely the maintenance of JAL.

In addition to the complaint by relatives, 3,295 people filed similar charges with Tokyo District Court, bringing the total of such plaintiffs to 13,088. In one case, relatives of 48 of the 520 crash victims filed for an unspecified amount of damages against the Boeing Company and Japan Airlines. The bereaved families, most living in Osaka and its environs, were led by Isuguhiko Sato, president of the Osaka Institute of Technology, who also lost a relative in the crash. The complaint cited JAL and Boeing for the same negligence attributed to them by previous accusers.

According to JAL, the airline company had already made out-of-court settlements with the families of 61 passenger victims and that of the 15 crew members who died in the crash JAL, however, refused to give specific figures, One family-complainant from Kobe, however, sued the company for 180 million yen. The complainant lost three family members in the air accident. Another group of 660 crash victim relatives filed similar complaints with the prosecutors calling for legal prosecution of JAL, Boeing and the Japanese government. The plaintiffs included bereaved families of one British and two Italian victims. Another group of 46 people representing relatives of 19 victims of the crash filed a similar damages suit just before the first anniversary of the crash.

In Seattle, Washington, the number of cases filed against JAL and Boeing rose to 79 with 15 more lawsuits filed in July 1986. The complaints also sought damages for the relatives of those who died in connection with the August 12 plane accident. Suits at the King County Superior Court also claimed general damages for relatives of the victims. Vern Judkins, the Seattle lawyer also handling the case, was hoping the cases could be tried in the United States where they could be resolved in two years. In Japan, according to Judkins, they could stretch to 10 years because of different legal procedures.

As :the first anniversary of the August 12 crash came around, another group of families of victims chose to mark the occasion by filing a complaint of involuntary manslaughter against 12; officials of Boeing, JAL and the Transport Ministry Since April of 1986, groups of relatives of the crash victims have made it a point to file complaints on the 12th of the month. All in all, 697 persons representing l95 families have become complainants. Up until now, Boeing has refused to comment on the law suits that allege criminal negligence on the part of the aerospace giant.

---~-1n Tokyo, the District Court last September 1986 ordered the New Japan Domestic Airline Company and pilot Kumitoshi Kasuya, 32, to pay a total of 3 million yen in damages arising from a helicopter crash in 1980. The damage suit against the company and the pilot asked compensation for the "terror" experienced by two passengers for the one minute before the helicopter crashed at the foot of Mt. Fuji.

Kasuya was flying Hiroshi Yagi, 43, an advertising company producer, and Masaomi Watanabe, 44, a commercial film producer, to the foot of Mt. Fuji to shoot a commercial film. The court ruled that "the fear of death experienced during the crash was grave compared to that of a traffic accident and that compensation for fear; itself must be calculated, recognizing for the first time the right to demand damages for "terror experienced aircraft accident victims."

The court ordered the airline company and the pilot to pay 500,000 yen each to the two complainants.

-----In Osaka, Thai Airways in January 1987 decided to pay damages of 100,000 yen to 200,000 yen to each of the 232 passenger, aboard a jet which force landed in Osaka October 1986 after a hand grenade exploded ill mid-air. The accident happened after a Japanese gangster allegedly detonated the grenade by accident in the lavatory of an Airbus 300 en route to Osaka.

The Bangkok-based airline decided to compensate each passenger 12 years or older, 200,000 yen and 100,000 yen each to those below 12--whether they were injured or not. The, airline considered tbe yakuza responsible for the explosion that in injured 60 passengers and crew. The company earlier paid for medical expenses and baggage damages resulting from the accident.

In a case arising out of a JAL jet crash in February 1982, the Tokyo District Prosecutor's Office reaffirmed its 1984 decision clearing six persons of charges. The crash' killed 24 people and injured 141 passengers but the pilot survived.

The charge reviewed at the instigation of the No. 1 Tokyo Inquest of Prosecution in 1985, requested that five of the accused be indicted for criminal responsibility. The six included Kazuhiko Suda, 55., past director of the JAL's DC8 Flight Crew Department, three other JAL officials and immediate supervisors of the pilot, and two part-time physicians. The inquest held in October 1986 said that five of the six named were indictable because they assigned the pilot to the flight although he. had been hospitalized for mental disturbance for more than a year. In July 1983, the police submitted papers on the case that alleged the six officials were criminally responsible for manslaughter. The case was reviewed at the request of relative of the dead victims of the crash who were not satisfied with the earlier ruling.

The prosecutor’s office in its decision to reaffirm the 1984 decision, concluded, that .it was impossible for the six to .know before the accident that the pilot of the ill-fated jet was suffering from schizophrenia.

THE JAPAN LAWLETTER. January 1987. By Roderick Seeman