Families of victims killed in the Dec. 29, 2024, Jeju Air crash are pursuing legal action in the United States against Boeing, seeking to establish whether the manufacturer of the 737-800 involved in the disaster bears responsibility for the tragedy.
The number of victims represented in the lawsuit has increased almost fourfold in recent months, with families of 53 people now involved in the case, compared with 14 when the legal action was initially launched.
The decision to pursue the case in the United States is partly driven by the broader discovery powers available in U.S. civil litigation. The families hope those procedures will allow them to obtain technical records and other evidence held by Boeing that could help explain what happened to the aircraft after it struck birds.
While Korean investigators have concentrated heavily on the embankment supporting the localizer antenna at Muan International Airport, the families want to examine events inside the aircraft immediately after the bird strike, including the performance of its engines and various safety and backup systems.
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 claims seek compensation for injuries or deaths allegedly caused by defective products. The case, which initially involved families of 14 victims, has since expanded to include those representing 53 victims.
The complaint, first filed in state court before being entered into the federal court record in Seattle, alleges that Boeing failed to meet its responsibility to design, manufacture, distribute and sell a safe Boeing 737-800 aircraft.
The plaintiffs are seeking to establish whether Boeing was negligent in the aircraft’s design, manufacturing or inspection and whether any such negligence contributed to the crash or worsened its consequences.
In its complaint and subsequent court filings, Herrmann Law Group argues that the bird strike should not by itself be regarded as a sufficient explanation for the disaster, which claimed 179 lives.
Attorney Charles Herrmann told the Hankook Ilbo that bird strikes happen frequently in aviation, but most do not result in catastrophic accidents. He said the fact that birds entered the aircraft’s engines alone could not fully account for the deaths of 179 people.
He also said bird strikes are among the hazards considered during aircraft design and certification, making it necessary to examine the aircraft’s response after the impact. That includes the operation of the engines as well as electrical, hydraulic, thrust-control and backup systems, he said.
A major factor behind the families’ decision to file in the United States is the scope of the country’s discovery system. In civil cases, parties can seek relevant documents and testimony from opposing parties before trial. Failure to comply with a court order to produce records, without a legitimate justification, or the destruction of relevant evidence can result in adverse findings and potentially significant sanctions.
Lim Chi-young, a Korean lawyer representing the families, said the consequences of violating a U.S. discovery order could put substantial pressure on Boeing to release a wide range of records.
As the designer and manufacturer of the 737-800, Boeing possesses extensive information about the aircraft’s design, system operations, testing and certification. Its technical expertise is also one reason companies involved in producing the aircraft have taken part in the crash investigation through the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and other channels.
The families and their lawyers therefore regard Boeing as one of the parties most capable of providing detailed information about what happened to the aircraft itself.
Korean investigators, meanwhile, have so far focused largely on the airport’s localizer installation. Last month, a special police investigation referred seven transport ministry officials to prosecutors over allegations that they prepared and distributed documents stating that the installation complied with regulations despite allegedly knowing that it did not.
Police have said they need the findings of the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board before determining the full causes of the crash and assigning responsibility. That investigation remains ongoing.
For the victims’ families, however, determining what happened inside the aircraft immediately after the bird strike is a separate issue from the localizer installation. They believe answering those questions will ultimately require access to records held by Boeing.
The families and their legal representatives are seeking court orders compelling Boeing to provide documents that could shed light on the aircraft’s response during the emergency. The requested materials include design records for the autothrottle, electrical and hydraulic systems and emergency power supply, along with bird-strike certification testing records, failure-mode analyses, technical documents relating to comparable accidents and materials gathered during the crash investigation.
If obtained through the U.S. discovery process, the documents could be examined by independent aviation engineering and engine specialists. Their analysis could help determine whether the aircraft’s systems performed according to their design specifications during the emergency.
“So far the families had only limited access to information from Korean investigation through National Assembly,” Lim said.
Herrmann Law Group has traditionally taken a similar approach in aviation litigation, seeking manufacturers’ internal records and then having aviation specialists assess the evidence to establish potential liability. Charles Herrmann has represented Korean victims and their families in several major aviation disasters, beginning with Korean Air Flight 007 in 1983 and later including Korean Air Flight 801, which crashed in Guam.
Potentially higher damages in U.S. courts are another factor behind the families’ decision to pursue the case there.
Korean courts do not impose an overall cap on compensation for deaths resulting from aviation accidents. However, non-economic damages generally use 200 million won as a baseline, with higher amounts possible where significant aggravating circumstances exist. Lost-income damages are calculated separately according to factors such as the victim’s occupation and expected future earnings.
Washington state takes a different approach. It has no general statutory ceiling on non-economic damages such as compensation for pain, suffering and emotional distress. Instead, juries determine awards based on the injuries and losses demonstrated by the evidence in each case, potentially allowing significantly larger compensation than would generally be available in Korea.
Herrmann said the differences could mean substantially greater compensation in the United States for the death of the same individual. He also argued that the size of financial awards can be an important factor in encouraging major aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing to maintain strong safety standards.
The families nevertheless face significant legal hurdles.
Among the most immediate is the possibility that Boeing will seek dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Under the doctrine, a U.S. court may decline to hear a case if it concludes that another country provides a more appropriate forum, taking into account considerations such as the location of the accident, witnesses and evidence.
Herrmann Law Group expects Boeing to pursue such a dismissal. A representative of the firm said Boeing has frequently relied on the doctrine in aviation cases to argue that litigation should take place in the country where a crash occurred.
Boeing is expected to argue that Korea is the more appropriate venue because the crash site, Jeju Air and airport authorities are all located there, according to the representative.
The families, however, argue that the United States is the appropriate forum because Boeing is headquartered there and because key records relating to the 737-800’s design and certification, as well as engineers involved in its development, are located in the country.
The federal court in Seattle has set Friday as the deadline for Boeing to file a motion seeking dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds. Both sides are expected to complete briefing by Oct. 23.
Lim said the case could move directly toward examination of the underlying claims if Boeing does not seek dismissal. If the company files such a motion, however, the court will first address whether the case should be heard in the United States after Oct. 23.
The families must overcome that jurisdictional challenge before their claims against Boeing can proceed to consideration on their merits in a U.S. court.
