Two lawsuits have been filed against Delta Air Lines in the aftermath of the crash of Delta Flight 4819.
Delta Air Lines Already Faces Two Lawsuits Over Flight 4819 Crash
I knew it would only be a matter of time before the lawsuits were filed and there’s no doubt that many of the passengers onboard the Endeavor Air CRJ-900 that crashed while landing in Toronto (YYZ) on Monday will be looking for a big pay day.
Lawsuit #1: Marthinus Lourens
The first lawsuit was filed by Marthinus Lourens in a US federal court in Atlanta. Lourens contends he was doused in jet fuel when the plane turned upside down, which caused “severe” emotional distress and mental anguish:
“During the crash sequence, Mr. Laurens was belted in his seat, which prevented him from sustaining life-threatening injuries. As the plane rolled upside down, Mr. Laurens was drenched with jet fuel. Experiencing the crash and being suspended upside down by his seatbelt while drenched with jet fuel, in a burning plane, caused Mr. Laurens to suffer severe emotional distress and mental anguish.”
Laurens further contends that he suffered more injuries “when he released his seatbelt and fell to the ceiling of the upside-down aircraft.”
He is suing under the Montreal Convention, a 2003 treaty that governs (among other things) compensation for airline crashes, claiming negligence on the part of Delta, Endeavor, and the pilots onboard.
“As a result of said accident, Mr. Lourens suffered great pain, agony and mental anguish, and in the future shall continue to suffer from same.”
He is asking for about $200,000.
You can read the complaint here.
Lawsuit #2: Hannah Krebs
The second lawsuit was filed in federal court in Minneapolis, where Hannah Krebs lives and where Endeavor is based.
Krebs is suing largely under the same theory (negligence and invoking the Montreal Convention), although not seeking specific damages beyond what a jury may award (any award will be limited by the Montreal Convention).
Her lawsuit places the blame for the crash squarely on the two pilots:
“The Flight 4819 flight crew failed to observe the most fundamental procedures for a landing approach into YYZ, failed to appropriately monitor flight conditions on approach, and failed communicate and react in the cockpit to those flight conditions.”
Her attorney contends, “This suit seeks to hold Delta and Endeavor Air accountable for actions we believe led to a preventable catastrophic event.”
You can read the complaint here.
CONCLUSION
It is no surprise that Delta has already been sued twice over the crash and I would expect nearly every passenger to sue Delta, especially if crash investigators definitively establish that pilot error was to blame for the crash.
image: Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Always looking for a handout, they got $30k what do they want? The passengers on AA 5342 would gladly trade places with these grifters. They should be grateful to be alive and with minor injuries, instead they want a cash grab.
Hopefully they get nothing from the courts.
Maybe anothet 50k after tax and lawyers.
The real winner is uncle scam. Get to double tax lawyer fees
It’s the American way. We have a president that sues for everything
@Dave … I very much disagree that “they want a cash grab” . They need to file the lawsuit so the clock will begin .
@Matthew … I very much disagree hat the pax “will be looking for a big pay day” . They need to file the lawsuit so the clock will begin .
Could delta try to settle before the investigation results are finalized?
It certainly could.
I’m pretty surprised that they’re so quick to sue. Wouldn’t it be in their interest to wait until there’s some kind of investigation report and/or to engage in pre-action correspondence with the airline before rushing to file a claim?
@PM … they need to file the lawsuit so the clock will begin , and also the passengers themselves are now represented by counsel , and all communications will be by the counsel . That is most important .
What do you mean by the clock reference? In English law one may file a claim up to six years after incurring a loss, is the statute of limitations a lot tighter in the USA? And wouldn’t the lawyers be able to correspond with the defendant prior to suing?
@PM … Good question . I have never had any of this happen , regarding starting the clock , or searching for a lawyer experienced in this type of lawsuit . So , I have no knowledge of the procedures . However , …
I surmise that once the plaintiff has officially filed the lawsuit then , (a) he can relax that the legal matters are in safe hands , (b) follow the lawyer’s advice regarding records, etc. ; (c) and be free of any communications with any of the parties , the airline , or the airline’s insurancc company . If he needs to write statements or appear for depositions , he will have his legal counsel prepared to accompany him . Also , if lawsuits are consolidated in one jurisdiction , this can be handled by the lawyer . Far better for the expert lawyer to handle the case , for the contingency fee , than for the plaintiff to be trapped in a system he cannot understand .
It is in their lawyers’ interest to get their names out there to attract additional pax as clients.
@Dave W. , that’s probably the answer. The timing is more about the interests of the lawyer than those of the claimant
Maybe the lawyers have concluded that it is too difficult to sue Pearson Airport (Toronto) or the Canadian ATC? It is probably a combination of the Canadian legal system doesn’t make large awards and that the lawyers are American who are not experienced in the Canadian legal system.
In a different matter, I wonder if there was quick return of cabin luggage? That is not hard. As soon as the fire risk is over, just send some employees to gather up the cabin baggage. That is likely to have passports, wallets, medication, keys, etc. I suspect that they are not too quick for that.
US1549 that landed in the Hudson River had the checked luggage returned but it was months later. I do not know the speed of cabin baggage.
If I were a passenger who wanted to sue, I would probably not sue so quickly. It takes a little time to find good attorneys.
The second lawsuit has some odd word choices. It uses the words “souls”, “Delta Crash 4819”, etc.
Does NavCan (Canadian ATC) have any responsibility for this accident? They cleared the aircraft to land, I don’t see how they neglected or failed in their duties.
The GTAA (operator of YYZ) could be responsible for improper runway clearing or the windrow on the edge of the runway, but it’s still the the aircraft’s responsibility to land safely, given the conditions.
Not sure how contract law operates in UA/Canada, but in the English system suing the airport and/or ATC would probably be unnecessarily complicated as pax don’t directly contract those services, so it would need to be done on a pure tort basis with potentially less chance of a successful outcome. It makes more sense to sue the airline and then the airline would have the option to in turn pursue the suppliers of those services.
*USA/Canada, not United Airlines!
“The second lawsuit has some odd word choices. It uses the words “souls”, “Delta Crash 4819”, etc.” The term souls is regularly used in aviation to refer to people. A pilot signaling an emergency on a flight would typically recount how many souls were aboard, the total of all pax and crew.
Was there actually jet fuel leaking into the cabin onto the passengers? I have doubts.
And if there was then it wasn’t the airlines fault.
Ridiculous lawsuit for people who think the hit the jackpot…
Not so ridiculous if you think you have been harmed more than $30,000. My guess is some passengers have not been harmed in excess of $30,000.
They also might be counting on the airline wanting to settle if they aren’t asking too much compared to expected legal fees.
@derek .., Not ridiculous at all , considering the photo of the aircraft , and what we know about the pilot flying .
I believe in case #1, they have filed an amened complaint and do not limit what they are seeking to $200,000. See https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Lourens-v-delta-airlines-complaint-usdc-northern-georgia.pdf
I wonder if there is a better jurisdiction to sue? Maybe federal court in Minnesota is better than Georgia or where the plaintiff lives.
#1 case is using a big local Austin, Texas personal injury law firm. This case may be new ground for them. #2 case is using a firm with aviation experience, including Mary Schiavo, who was a high profile government investigator years ago.
Looks like the personal injury law firm in Austin, Texas for case #1 hired co-counsel, an attorney who represented 5 plaintiffs who died in an American Airlines A300-600 crash near JFK in late 2001. That attorney is also a pilot as a hobby.
Martinus Lourens was likely flying Austin to Toronto. If so, he should have flown the Air Canada A320 non-stop that arrives at 4 pm. Too bad if he was chasing Sky Pesos and picked the crashed flight that also has a connection at MSP.
Real justice demands that all current Delta stock holders (the company’s owners) be forced to give up every single share, and that these shares be divided equally amongst the passengers on this flight. Share distribution may need to be adjusted based on how many woke points each passenger can claim.
These people will own the company until the next similar incident at Delta, when all the stock shares will be transferred to the passengers on that flight.
Alternatively, Delta could be forced to be completely liquidated, and all the $ proceeds given to the passengers on this flight.
I applaud failure and criticize success .
Lawsuit #1 : Bro is alive. The plane crash happened 5 days ago. He will be awarded 50k after paying his lawyer. I mean this is low level courthouse tv. If 3yrs from now they filed suit against Delta with proof of suffering, medical bills, etc. Then you have a case. Dismissed.
Lawsuit #2 : You survived a plane crash 5 days ago. 1-800-Lawyer.
You’re alive. You’re alive. Thank g-d. Sweet Jesus , lord , and Dale Earnhardt jr.
Just so’s y’all know: the Tort Bar Lobby gives almost exclusively to the Democrats. They’re responsible for a lot of ills in the US- including the high costs of healthcare and insurance.
Australia, NZ and other countries don’t allow that crap.
The ACA (Obamacare) law bans any tort reform pilot program that results in reduction of attorney pay or awards to people. Written by a lawyer…..ha