Originally Posted by The Baumer
I understand both views.
If the pilots had survived it would be pretty obvious that he would sue. He almost died because of their negligence. But since they died then the question becomes does that make the lawsuit redundant or meaningless? Obviously putting it in simplified terms, "he is suing the dead people's families", looks pretty crude but it could have been like a blanket lawsuit that held all parties down the line accountable (airport, airplane maker, the pilots, etc) and the pilot's death may not have been reason enough legally for them to make a special exclusion of accountability? I don't know how it works but I'm trying to think past the simplified idea that he wanted dead people's family's will money.
He was simply suing the pilots. It has nothing to do with the families other than they were set to inherit things. Its not like the guy is targeting the family members earnings or life savings.