[Agoraphobia]

We were 4 of the 8 people stuck on a Monorail for 2 hours at pearl ridge mall in Hawaii because the system as well as its back up failed. Afraid and anxious to get to safety we were extracted (rescued) by the HFD.

[Oliver2011]

You can't sue for being inconvenienced. You suffered no damages.

[Fr_Chuck]

There may be a case if you can show how this has caused emotional damage, the need for counseling, the fear of something.
If this delay caused you to miss a meeting, lose money from work and so on also.

[ballengerb1]

What caused the failure, was the mall negligent, was it reasonable for the mall operators to predict or prevent the problem? Very weak case I would think.

[Oliver2011]

She may just want to complain to the mall people and get a $18.45 gift card. That would be the extent of her collection I would think.

[excon]

Hello A:

You MIGHT. I'd consult a couple lawyers. They won't charge for an initial consultation...

excon

[AK lawyer]

...
You MIGHT. I'd consult a couple lawyers. They won't charge for an initial consultation...
...

Many don't. Some do. Ask first.

[dontknownuthin]

You'd have to show damages. I think it would be a stretch since you got out safely.

I ride a commuter train to work. On a fairly regular basis it's late. At times, thousands of people on a train are stuck on the train for two hours or more due to accidents or mechanical failures. It's an inconvenience - I mean, people need to get to work on time in the morning, or in the afternoon might have children to pick up at childcare. But I've never heard of a successful lawsuit over it - it's just an unfortunate reality - mechanical equipment fails sometimes.

[Oliver2011]

You'd have to show damages. I think it would be a stretch since you got out safely.

I ride a commuter train to work. On a fairly regular basis it's late. At times, thousands of people on a train are stuck on the train for two hours or more due to accidents or mechanical failures. It's an inconvenience - I mean, people need to get to work on time in the morning, or in the afternoon might have children to pick up at childcare. But I've never heard of a successful lawsuit over it - it's just an unfortunate reality - mechanical equipment fails sometimes.

And what about the people on JetBlue that have been stuck on the tarmac for hours and hours. They don't get to sue. They do get their ticket refunded or whatever.

[joypulv]

Your ID is Agoraphobia, but that might not work as part of the basis for the lawsuit, because you got on the monorail willingly, presumably (besides it's not an applicable phobia). I have to agree with all the people here (including myself) who have been stuck (underground) in subways and (in the air) on planes and who wouldn't have a snowball's chance of a lawsuit.
I once was in a holding pattern over an airport in winter, and apparently they turn the heat off when circling for landing, so it was freezing. But I was right by the exit and water was pooled at my feet, and my feet got all wet, and they wouldn't let me sit with my feet up! Feet on the floor for landing, even if it takes hours! ARRGH!

[excon]

Hello again,

This isn't about how WE'D respond to being trapped. It's about how SHE responded. If she suffered, whether you or I would have, IS the issue. IF she did, then she's entitled to compensation.

excon

[Oliver2011]

Hello again,

This isn't about how WE'D respond to being trapped. It's about how SHE responded. If she suffered, whether or not you or I would have, IS the issue. IF she did, then she's entitled to compensation.

excon

I respectfully disagree. If she goes to lawyer who only accepts payment if they win, they won't take the case because there is nothing to win. If she pays a lawyer she will be in the hole.

[excon]

Hello Oliver:

I don't know what you mean by nothing to win... The authority who runs the monorail has DEEP pockets. They have insurance. If she truly has damages, I think she'll easily find representation on a contingent basis.

excon

[J_9]

With all due respect Oliver, I have to agree with excon.

If this person could prove, through psychiatric treatment, that this incident cost him/her financial loss due to the increased anxiety caused by the incident, then there is a potential suit.

Now, with that said, this would be an uphill battle. The OP would have to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did indeed suffer agoraphobia prior to the issue at hand and that this aggravated the anxiety the OP was already experiencing.

For this to move forward there would have to be a prior diagnosis of the condition. However, the defense could counter-attack with the question as to why the OP, who suffered this disorder, got on the monorail to begin with.

[Oliver2011]

It is the up hill battle that would make most contingency basis lawyers not take it. A contingency basis counsel weighs the risk of spending time (money) on what could be no return. If there is a risk they won't get paid, most won't touch it.

Then you have to go paid counsel and is spending $25,000 to win $20,000 a good idea?

If the owners truly have deep pockets, then they will in turn have a set of lawyers who will represent them. She could get $1500 just to go away.

[ScottGem]

The only way you might win a lawsuit is if you can prove that the mall was negligent in maintaining the monorail.

[Oliver2011]

The only way you might win a lawsuit is if you can prove that the mall was negligent in maintaining the monorail.

And that would be $$$$$$$$$.

[excon]

Hello again,

Our job is NOT to try the case on these boards. Our job is simply to advise the OP. From what SHE said, she suffered. Who are WE to question that? As I said earlier, it's NOT a matter of whether WE'D suffer.. It's a matter of whether SHE did, and she SAYS she did. Whether she did or not is a matter for a COURT to decide, and that's where we should direct her.

We don't know whether she'd obtain counsel. We don't know whether their insurance would settle. We don't know WHO is responsible. We don't know ANY of the facts, and cannot, and should not speculate.. Those aren't questions before us.

I said earlier that the OP MIGHT have a case. I haven't changed my mind.

excon

[Oliver2011]

"Our job is simply to advise the OP." - Agreed.

"I said earlier that the OP MIGHT have a case." Well yeah but every issue might be a case. But to not advise as to the challenge and cost of said topic would be wrong.

I agree with J-9 in that she would have to answer why she road the thing (monorail was it) in the first place if she had these issues. The next question out of my mouth is how often does she ride the monorail, or in a car, bus, plane, etc.

Now it would be cool if she took this forward and reported back to us. I've got $10 on she gets nothing if this goes to court. $10 on no ambulance chaser would touch this. And $10 on if she pays for an attorney she pays more than she wins. :)

(kidding of course)


excon[/QUOTE]

[JudyKayTee]

You need damages you can prove as well as someone who was negligent.

What's the negligence?

I'm a liability investigator - I don't think this is even worth nuisance value. Trams, monorails, for that matter airplanes, are delayed all the time. That's the risk - that doesn't mean someone was negligent.