Aviation-accident lawyers say it would be almost impossible to collect damages from Russia or the pro-Russian rebels accused of shooting down the plane with a far-reaching surface-to-air missile. Malaysia Airlines will be left as the prime — maybe the only — defendant, and lawsuits are likely to hinge on the plane's planned route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17.
Malaysian officials have said that the route over eastern Ukraine was deemed safe by international aviation authorities as long as the plane flew higher than 32,000 feet — below that, Ukraine had closed the airspace, presumably because of the threat posed by pro-Russia rebels armed with shoulder-held anti-aircraft guns, which have a limited range. While the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had prohibited flights over the Crimean Peninsula, the U.S. ban did not extend to eastern Ukraine until after the shoot-down.
And, Malaysian officials have noted, other airlines continued to fly the same route, even on the day that Flight 17 was shot down.
But some aviation lawyers say that the families could have a strong case by arguing that Malaysia Airlines should have stopped flying over eastern Ukraine after the rebels shot down military jets earlier in July.
"The idea that somebody else was equally as stupid as they were is not that good of an argument," said Jonathan Reiter, a New York personal-injury lawyer who has handled many aviation cases.
Families of those on this year's major air crashes — Flight 17; Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which disappeared as it flew from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing; the crash of TransAsia Airways Flight 222 in stormy weather in Taiwan; and the crash of Air Algerie Flight 5017 in Mali — could be waiting years for compensation from the airlines and their insurers.
Under the Montreal treaty, lawsuits can be filed in the home country of the victim, the country where the airline is based, where the ticket was bought or where the plane was headed. Americans and Europeans have often received higher awards than families in countries such as Malaysia, where the courts usually stick to the treaty limit, lawyers say.
"You could have two people sitting next to each other who may have the same income. (The family of) one gets multi millions, and the other one gets $75,000," said Justin Green, an aviation attorney whose firm represented families of victims of Pan Am 103, bombed over Scotland in 1988.
For some relatives of those on Flight 17, the pain is still too raw to decide whether to go to court.
In the Netherlands, Kevin Fan is grappling with the job of running two Rotterdam restaurants that were owned by his parents, who, along with his grandmother, died in the crash. Fan's father, who went by Popo, was the chef at Asian Glories; his mother, Jenny, was the hostess.
On a recent day, several bunches of fresh-cut flowers had been left as a memorial outside the small restaurant. The 30-year-old Fan, an acclaimed young chef, was finishing a meeting with two accountants to go over the restaurant's books. He was about to start his next shift in the kitchen.
"It is overwhelming. There is just a lot to arrange," he said, choosing his words carefully. "My family is really stepping in to help."
As for suing the airline, Fan said, "I'm not focused on that right now."
Harun Calehr, whose two nephews were on Flight 17, said that even an initial partial payment from Malaysia Airlines was emotionally taxing.