LIMITATION MYTHS 9 (A): A BIT MORE ABOUT AVIATION, AIRPORTS AND HOT AIR BALLOONS: A POINT WORTH REPEATING
What has been interesting in the series on Myths and Limitation has been the response, mainly on Twitter. “That happened to me”, or “I sued someone who missed that point”. This even found its way into the “Halloween for Litigators” post. The very first response to the question what keeps litigators awake at night was “blowing a deadline” (all the way from the USA – these things are fairly universal). At the end of that post there is a response from “Pro-Bono”
“I’m not on Twitter, but my own personal nightmare was turning down a fairly reasonable offer for a client injured in a balloon ride only to receive a letter a few weeks later from the loss adjusters withdrawing the offer and saying the claim had been extinguished under the TWO YEAR limitation period imposed by the Warsaw Convention. Who knew? 🙁
And well done to Gordon for highlighting this trap recently – I just wish it’d been published a few years ago.”
This shows that some points may need to be repeated regularly. Readers may not know, or have forgotten, previous posts on this very topic.
- July 7 2013 – “Avoiding negligence 2: not every personal injury limitation period is three years”.
- July 30 2013 – “Aviation and the really vicious limitation period: avoiding negligence 3″ (with a specific reference to balloons and a link to the Laroche case)
- September 10 2013 – Aviation and Limitation: 10 questions every personal injury litigator should asked
- October 10 2013 – “Ten myths about limitation that every personal injury litigator should know”.