The Boeing 737 MAX catastrophes have lingered in the hearts of many across the globe, serving as a sobering reminder that prioritizing profit over safety can have deadly consequences. In the wake of these crashes that claimed 346 lives, Boeing has become entangled in numerous civil suits launched by the victims’ families.

While Boeing also faced a criminal charge, that case recently took a disappointing turn when a Texas court dismissed the case in early November. The criminal case was covered at length in our February newsletter. The victims’ families are currently appealing that decision with a higher court. If the dismissal ultimately stands, Boeing will walk away without facing any criminal accountability for its despicable conduct. However, the company is still facing a different form of accountability through the civil court system.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

Although criminal and civil cases may look similar in their structure, they serve very different purposes. Criminal cases occur when the government brings charges against an individual or organization for violating the law. In the Boeing matter, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice charged Boeing with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Criminal prosecutions are meant to enforce laws.

Civil cases, on the other hand, exist to resolve disputes between people or institutions. Rather than seeking punishment, these cases are primarily concerned with recovering damages for those who were harmed by wrongdoing. In the context of the MAX crashes, this means that instead of the government going after Boeing, the victims’ families themselves bring claims against the company. These cases do not carry criminal labels. Instead, they focus on compensation, accountability, and for many, a measure of closure amidst their grief.

Civil lawsuits follow a relatively structured process. The person launching the lawsuit, known as the plaintiff, files a complaint against the party that has wronged them, known as the defendant. From there, the case moves through a series of pretrial proceedings which work to prepare both sides for trial. During this stage, the parties exchange evidence, argue about what information can and cannot be brought up, and clarify some of the legal issues that the jury or judge will ultimately decide. Courts also strongly encourage the parties to make genuine attempts at settlement during this stage. If a settlement cannot be reached, the case then proceeds to trial.

Civil trials themselves are typically divided into two major phases. The first phase addresses liability. Before anything else, the jury – or judge, in a non-jury trial – must determine whether the defendant is legally responsible for the harm alleged by the plaintiff. If the jury finds they are not liable, the case ends there. Full stop. But, if the jury determines that the defendant is responsible, the trial moves into the second phase: damages. At that point, the focus shifts to determining the proper compensation the plaintiff should receive for the harm suffered.

MAX Crash Civil Litigation

Following the MAX disasters, dozens of civil lawsuits were filed by victims' families. In their complaints, families outlined the actions they believed led to their loved ones’ deaths and laid out the legal basis for their claims. Common allegations made by the families include wrongful death, negligence, and products liability. These causes of action form the foundation for holding Boeing liable and determining what compensation the families may be entitled to receive.

Because of the heavy lawsuit load stemming from the second MAX crash, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, the cases were consolidated in federal court. Consolidating cases allows the litigation for related cases to be handled more efficiently. Rather than having dozens of separate lawsuits move independently through the same lengthy pretrial process, the cases could move forward together for pretrial matters while still allowing each family to ultimately have their own trial or settlement. It was within this consolidated litigation that a major milestone occurred.

The Stipulation

‍
In 2021, Boeing and the families (all but two) of the ET302 victims entered into a stipulation as part of the pretrial proceedings. A stipulation is essentially a binding agreement between parties about certain facts or issues with a case. This particular stipulation resolved several important matters. It confirmed the cases would all be heard in the Northern District of Illinois, and ensured that each plaintiff would be entitled to pursue full compensatory damages.

Most significantly, in this stipulation, Boeing agreed to accept sole liability for the crash. In the company’s own words, “Defendant the Boeing Company admits that it accepts responsibility for the crash of Flight ET302, which caused the deaths of all onboard.” By making this admission, Boeing acknowledged that it alone was responsible for the damages owed to the victims’ families. Completely and exclusively.

Recall that liability is a key aspect of civil cases. Once liability is determined, the case moves onto determining proper compensation. So, having the plaintiff admit to liability streamlines the case, cutting the most contentious part out. With liability not up for question, compensation is the whole focus.

At the beginning of each trial, juries are therefore instructed that Boeing’s liability has already been established. They are told their role is not to determine whether Boeing is responsible for the crash, but to decide the appropriate compensation. Damages, as specified in the stipulation, include but are not limited to things like loss of economic support, burial expenses, and the sorrow and mental suffering experienced by family members as a result of the death of their loved ones. By eliminating the need to question liability, the process was simplified, allowing families to focus on the losses they endured rather than battling over fault.

What’s the catch? Boeing’s decision to admit liability may not have been purely an act of goodwill, but instead a strategic move for the company. If liability had remained contested, the trials would have permitted and required extensive evidence about Boeing’s conduct leading up to the crashes. Internal communications, engineering decisions, certification issues, and plenty of other potentially damaging information could have been presented in open court, rather than swept under the rug. By removing this possibility and accepting responsibility, Boeing avoided the disclosure of damaging information and limited the scope of what would be discussed at trial. In doing so, Boeing can control the public narrative and present itself as a company that has accepted responsibility and encouraged families to seek compensation.

The stipulation also included another important limitation: families agreed not to pursue punitive damages in their cases. Unlike compensatory damages, which are meant to reimburse victims, punitive damages are designed simply to punish defendants and deter future misconduct. Removing that possibility significantly reduced Boeing’s financial exposure in the litigation.

‍
Contesting the Recoverable Compensation

This ruling acknowledged the grim reality of the crash. Evidence indicated that the aircraft maneuvered violently for several minutes before eventually plunging into the ground. For families, this decision meant that juries could consider the suffering their loved ones likely endured – moments that families have replayed and reimagined over and over.

Fortunately, the court firmly rejected this shameful suggestion. It ruled that families could seek damages for the pain and terror the victims likely experienced during the final moments of their lives. As the court explained, “a jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that will be presented at trial that the passengers on ET302 perceived that they were going to crash, horrifically, to their certain death.”

Adding insult to injury, in 2023, Boeing attempted to prevent families from recovering damages related to the emotional distress their loved ones may have faced during the flight that ended their lives. The company argued that the law says this type of compensation should only apply for the conscious pain and suffering as a result of an injury. Because the passengers died immediately upon impact with the ground, there was no after. Under this reasoning Boeing suggested that any claim that passengers experienced terror during the flight would be speculative. Therefore, Boeing’s attorneys argued, it should not be relevant for calculating damages.

Settlements

Paul Njoroge, who lost his wife, mother-in-law, and three children, described the thoughts that remain with him in a statement shared by the law office representing him. "I stay up nights thinking of the horror that they must have endured as pilots struggled to keep the plane flying for six minutes,” he said. “The terror that my wife must have experienced with little Rubi on her lap, our two children besides her crying for their daddy, and my mum-in-law feeling helpless beside her. The six minutes will forever be embedded in my mind. I was not there to help them. I couldn't save them."

Ultimately, Njoroge reached a settlement with Boeing only days before his trial was scheduled to begin.

The vast majority of cases stemming from the crash have been resolved through settlements rather than trials. Settlements allow the parties to resolve the disputes privately without the uncertainty and emotional toll of a courtroom battle. Compensation is determined through a binding agreement, rather than a verdict. The terms of the settlements have remained largely confidential. In many instances, agreements were reached shortly before trial– sometimes even just hours before proceedings were set to begin.

Still, a few cases have gone before juries. The first ET302 case to reach trial was the case of Shikha Garg. Garg was a consultant for the United Nations Development Program and was traveling to Kenya for a UN environmental assembly when she boarded the Boeing 737 MAX-8. She was an accomplished professional and had gotten married only a few months before the flight. After hearing the case, a jury awarded her family $35.8 million in damages.

To date, approximately 90% of the lawsuits stemming from the devastation have been resolved through settlement. However, several cases remain unresolved and ongoing. Boeing’s civil accountability for the crashes is still unfolding.