1

While browsing some stuff on quora, I came across that cabin crew is not a legal witness as per law.

Cabin crew cannot be a legal witness as per the law, due to cabin pressure and altitude they tend to have a bad memory.

Trying to understand is that true only in India or does it applies to other parts of the world as well?

  • 5
    Lots of "answers" on Quora are absolute rubbish. – gnasher729 Jul 19 '17 at 16:42
  • @gnasher729 That is true, but of course it does not mean that the quoted material is rubbish. Still, the quoted material certainly appears to be rubbish. Here_2_learn, have you seen any other indication that it might be true? – phoog Jul 19 '17 at 16:51
  • @All : It is not correct to generalise all the answers on Quora to "rubbish". I have seen some of the answers are valid..hence posted this question... – Here_2_learn Jul 19 '17 at 18:11
  • @Here_2_learn: I'll point out that there is a difference between "lots of answers" and "all answers". – gnasher729 Jul 20 '17 at 22:59
1

The answer on Quora is just plain wrong. I very much doubt that this is true in India, let alone anywhere else. Indeed, flight crew routinely testify as witnesses in accident investigations and in criminal cases arising from misconduct by passengers on commercial aircraft (for a recent dramatization of such a case consider the movie Sully).

Further, even if it is true in some circumstances, it is almost certainly true that the reason IS NOT "due to cabin pressure and altitude they tend to have a bad memory." Bad memory or impairments, even if you had them, are not a bar to serving as a witness in court. This reasoning would bar anyone from testifying about anything that happens on an aircraft and it is not empirically true that flight crew have bad memories.

If airplane crews were not required to testify involuntarily in India (and I don't know if this is true or not, I suspect it is not true), it would be because flight personnel would be immune to subpoena process because it is unduly burdensome on people who travel so routinely.

  • It would help the last paragraph to summarise it in simple language: airline aircraft personnel can be witnesses, but they may not be required to be witnesses. – Nij Jul 19 '17 at 23:25
  • 1
    @Nij While that is more or less what I'm suggesting may be the case, I avoided making a simple statement like that because while it might be true that they may not be required to be witnesses, I don't know with confidence that this is the case. – ohwilleke Jul 20 '17 at 3:36
  • "May not" is not "can not", hence the wording. – Nij Jul 20 '17 at 4:05
  • @Nij but "may not be required to be witnesses" means essentially the same thing as "cannot be required to be witnesses." I think you meant to say "can be witnesses but it may be that they cannot be required to be witnesses." – phoog Jul 20 '17 at 4:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.