Why Jeju Air crash victims' families are taking Boeing to US courts

Families of those killed in the Dec. 29, 2024, Jeju Air crash are turning to U.S. courts to hold Boeing, the manufacturer of the 737-800 involved in the disaster, accountable.

The number of victims whose families have joined the lawsuit has recently grown nearly fourfold.

A key reason for pursuing the case in the United States is the prospect of obtaining records held by Boeing through the courts. While Korean investigations have focused largely on the embankment supporting the localizer antenna at Muan International Airport, the families want to establish what happened immediately after the bird strike, including how it affected the aircraft and how its safety systems responded.

Lawsuit grows from families of 14 victims to 52

The families began pursuing a product liability lawsuit against Boeing in the United States last October through Herrmann Law Group and other lawyers, according to legal sources on Tuesday. Such lawsuits seek compensation for harm caused by defective products. Initially brought by the families of 14 victims, the case now includes families representing 53 victims.

The families’ complaint, originally filed in state court and subsequently entered into the federal court record in Seattle, lays out what they hope to establish. It alleges that Boeing failed to fulfill its duty to design, manufacture, distribute and sell a safe Boeing 737-800 aircraft.

The families are seeking to determine whether Boeing, as the manufacturer responsible for the aircraft’s overall safety, was negligent in its design, manufacturing or inspection processes and, if so, whether that negligence contributed to the crash or made its consequences more severe.

In its complaint and other filings, Herrmann Law Group stresses that the bird strike alone should not be treated as a full explanation for the disaster that killed 179 people.

Attorney Charles Herrmann told the Hankook Ilbo that numerous bird strikes occur every year, but most do not lead to major disasters. The fact that birds entered the engines could not, on its own, fully explain why 179 people died, he said.

Because bird strikes are a risk considered during aircraft design and certification, investigators need to examine how the engines and the electrical, hydraulic, thrust control and backup systems responded after the strike, he added.

US discovery powers offer access to Boeing’s extensive records

Why have the families turned to U.S. courts rather than those in Korea? One reason is the broad reach of the U.S. discovery process, which allows parties in civil lawsuits to obtain relevant records and testimony from the other side before trial. Failure to produce court-ordered records without a valid reason, or destruction of those records, can lead to adverse findings of fact and, in some cases, stiff sanctions.

Lim Chi-young, a lawyer representing the families in Korea, said the substantial consequences of defying a U.S. court’s discovery order could compel Boeing to disclose extensive records.

As the designer and manufacturer of the 737-800 involved in the crash, Boeing holds records on the aircraft’s design, how its systems work and their testing and certification. That technical knowledge also explains why companies involved in manufacturing the aircraft participated in the crash investigation through the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and other channels. The families and their lawyers see Boeing as one of the parties with the most extensive information about the aircraft itself.

So far, Korean investigators have focused largely on the airport’s localizer installation. Last month, a special police team investigating the crash referred seven transport ministry officials to prosecutors on suspicion of preparing and distributing documents claiming that the installation complied with regulations despite knowing otherwise.

Police said they needed the findings of the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board to determine the full causes of the disaster and who bears responsibility. The board’s investigation remains underway. For the families, establishing what happened aboard the aircraft immediately after the bird strike, separately from the localizer issue, ultimately requires access to records held by the manufacturer.

The families and their lawyers aim to compel Boeing to produce key records in court. These include design documents for the autothrottle, electrical and hydraulic systems and emergency power supply, as well as records of bird-strike certification tests, failure mode analyses, technical documents concerning similar accidents and materials obtained during the crash investigation.

If secured through discovery, the records could be reviewed by independent aviation engineering and engine experts to determine whether the aircraft’s systems worked as designed during the emergency.

"So far the families had only limited access to information from Korean investigation through National Assembly," Lim said.

Herrmann Law Group’s approach to aviation litigation has typically involved obtaining manufacturers’ records and having aviation experts analyze them to establish liability. Charles Herrmann has represented Korean victims and their families in numerous aviation disasters, beginning with Korean Air Flight 007 in 1983 and later including Korean Air Flight 801, which crashed in Guam.

Larger damages awards could push manufacturers to take safety seriously

Another reason the families are turning to the United States is the difference in how Korean and U.S. courts award damages. Korean courts do not cap total compensation for deaths in aviation accidents, but generally use 200 million won as the baseline for non-economic damages, increasing the amount when there are significant aggravating factors. Compensation for lost earnings is calculated separately based on the victim’s occupation and projected income.

Washington state, by contrast, has no general statutory cap on non-economic damages, including compensation for pain, suffering and emotional distress. Juries determine awards based on the harm suffered in each case and the evidence presented, leaving scope for substantially higher compensation than in Korea.

Herrmann said these differences could result in much higher compensation in the United States for the same death. He added that the size of an award plays an important role in making major aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing take safety seriously.

Potential battle looms over whether US courts should hear the case

Obstacles remain for the families. One of the most immediate is the possibility that the U.S. case could be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, leaving them to pursue their claims in Korea. The doctrine allows a U.S. court to dismiss a case if it determines that another country offers a more appropriate forum, considering factors such as where the accident occurred and where witnesses and evidence are located.

Herrmann Law Group expects Boeing to seek dismissal on those grounds. A firm representative said Boeing has frequently invoked the doctrine to have cases heard in the countries where crashes occurred. The company is likely to argue that the case should be heard in Korea because the crash site, Jeju Air and the airport authorities are all there, the representative said.

The families, however, maintain that the case belongs in the United States, where Boeing’s headquarters, the 737-800’s design and certification records and engineers involved in the aircraft’s development are located.

The federal court in Seattle has set Friday as the deadline for Boeing to file a motion seeking dismissal under the doctrine, with briefing by both sides to be completed by Oct. 23.

Lim said the case could proceed directly to consideration of the underlying claims if Boeing does not file the motion. If it does, the court will first consider the forum issue after Oct. 23. The families would need to overcome that challenge before their claims against Boeing could be heard in a U.S. court.

This article from the Hankook Ilbo, the sister publication of The Korea Times, is translated by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Times.