Man Dragged off United Airlines/Flight Overbooked, April 2017

United was apparently too cheap to hit the $1350 maximum before they decided to haul him off the plane. They may have gotten a volunteer at 1350

If it is true that Dao and his wife initially volunteered, but then retracted when they realized they would not be able to get home until late the next day, I wonder why the United employees did not just ask for another volunteer. Someone still might have accepted if they had just asked again. (And it has also been reported that someone did, but UA refused to give them the $1,600 they wanted).

Instead it sounds to me like they went the route "oh no, you already said you'd get off, so GET OFF" and here we are.

Not facts, just my opinion.
 
Stray observation:
It's important for people to believe if something bad happens to you you must have deserved it.

He brought this on himself. He should have done this and not done that. He asked for it. He's bad - just look at his record. I would never do any of those things so I'm safe and good. Etc.

I think this is at the root of a lot of victim blaming in cases like this. People need to reassure themselves it could never happen to them.
 
My faith in humanity has gone out of the window after reading this thread. Whether he was a doctor, binman or the president is not important, no one deserves to be dragged off a plane in full view of everyone with a bloddy face for just wanting to get to their destination on time
 
United was apparently too cheap to hit the $1350 maximum before they decided to haul him off the plane. They may have gotten a volunteer at 1350

I agree.. I would have taken the next flight out and would not have caused a disturbance, but that is my personality. :blushing: I usually want to get home just like most people on a flight heading home.
 
is there an MSM link that says he was on the phone with his lawyer while this was happening? ty.

even if it is true it is again interesting to see how different people interpret it, one way is to assume that he must have already been planning the lawsuit to cash in on this situation that he created on purpose... another way would be to ask if he might have been asking his lawyer if they could really force him off once he is seated and looking for advice on how to proceed...
 
Every passenger on that flight should.

At the very least, UA has announced that all passengers will be refunded the cost of the flight. We'll have to wait and see what further steps might be taken by affected passengers.
 
United was apparently too cheap to hit the $1350 maximum before they decided to haul him off the plane. They may have gotten a volunteer at 1350

Cash compensation may have a max limit, but airlines have no limit regarding the amount of travel vouchers they can offer their customers.

In my experience, airlines have never mentioned cash compensation- they always offered travel vouchers.
 
Hi !

Only flew her once with Delta I was delightfully surprised -real sharp and zesty little gal!! Was a joy to only have 1 person next to you instead of 4!!

What is your favorite? Only allowed one! I am old I loved the L-1011
C9QD3omW0AESjYb.jpg

Hello lovely Cariis, yep me too not sure if I have a favourite .... hmmm maybe a Tiger Moth.
 
Apr 13 2017, 1:10 pm ET

Doctor Dragged off United Plane Has Broken Nose and ‘Significant’ Concussion: Lawyer

by Erik Ortiz

The bruised and bloodied passenger who was forcibly removed this week from an United Airlines flight lost two front teeth and suffered a broken nose and "significant concussion" in the ordeal, his lawyers said Thursday.

Dr. David Dao, who fled war-torn Saigon before immigrating to America in 1975, was released from the hospital Wednesday, but will need reconstructive surgery and remains "shaken" by the experience, attorney Thomas Demetrio told reporters in Chicago.

"He said that being dragged down the aisle was more horrifying and harrowing than what he experienced in leaving Vietnam," Demetrio said...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...en-nose-significant-concussion-lawyer-n746056
 
Said vouchers expire fairly quickly too. If you don't fly often the vouchers may well expire before you can use them.

Cash compensation may have a max limit, but airlines have no limit regarding the amount of travel vouchers they can offer their customers.

In my experience, airlines have never mentioned cash compensation- they always offered travel vouchers.
 
I think a person's history might be relevant especially if this case goes to trial. Maybe not the fact that he's a bad doctor but his documented anger issues may come into play. I would be interested to know the history of the TSA agents that forcefully removed him as well. JMO

It's a reasonableness standard within the circumstances. If security guards know or have reason to know that a person is violent/aggressive (such as a repeat offender or if they were called into a situation due to violence/aggression) than those facts go to the circumstances. In this instance, as far as we know, there was no knowledge of any violence or aggression, his past was not known to the security guards. So it will never ever come into evidence, IMO.

I'm stunned at the desperate lengths some will go to protect him. Of course his past behavior is relevant. It always is. In EVERY case.

Again, it's only relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case if the guards knew or should have known about it. Here, IMO, there is no way they knew or should have known that he had any past anger or aggression.

Yeah that's just not true. Character evidence is inadmissible in such a case. The only way his background will be revelant is as to his mental status as it relates to trying to show how much of his emotional distress was caused by the airline as opposed to already there to begin with. Otherwise, none of that is relevant to defending United.

And happily, the laws of this great nation will protect this man. We don't have to go to great lengths. Legal experts, judges, lawyers, the LE department that suspended the officer involved in the incident, the majority of he general public who saw what happened, other airlines, even the CEO finally, of United himself, all understand the man was not at fault. United was.

^also I second this info on character evidence admissibility. It's very limited unless the plaintiff himself "opens the door" to his character, which he has no reason to here. Even when character evidence comes in, it can ONLY go to showing a person's credibility, NOT to show that they acted in accordance with a certain character trait. (there are exceptions for some situations when necessary, such as perjury and sexual crimes, etc.)

Rule 608.
EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER WITNESS
The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.

Rule 404.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE
CONDUCT; EXCEPTIONS; OTHER CRIMES


(a) Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:

(1) Character of Accused. In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same;

(2) Character of Alleged Victim. In a criminal case, and subject to the limitations imposed by section 115–7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/115–7), evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide or battery case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the first aggressor;

(3) Character of Witness. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Rules 607, 608, and 609.

(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith except as provided by sections 115–7.3, 115–7.4, and 115–20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/115–7.3, 725 ILCS 5/115–7.4, and 725 ILCS 5/115–20). Such evidence may also be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

(c) In a criminal case in which the prosecution intends to offer evidence under subdivision (b), it must disclose the evidence, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony, at a reasonable time in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown.

These are directly from the Illinois Rules of Evidence. Much more at link here (ctrl F "character" to find all the rules on character evidence) http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Evidence/Evidence.htm
 
I agree with you to some degree, I think the passenger AND United were wrong. I also have a very strong sneaking suspicion he was taking advantage of the situation as grounds to sue, an opportunist. He actually stated he would rather go to jail and they would have to drag him off the plane... what person in their right mind would want that or even suggest such a thing ? Not to mention he actually was on the phone talking about suing United while he was still sitting in his seat. The security officer talking to him tried to reason with him repeatedly but to no avail. I believe the good doctor is one who is apparently willing to take it to the limit for a potentially big pay off. Well, he is a gambler.

That said, I also think the actions taken by United and security were wrong, totally over the top and very stupid. They bit, now they'll pay.

It's just MOO, no tomato throwing please. :peace:

No tomatoes from me! :D Agreed 100% :loveyou:
 
I bet that they will get a psychiatric assessment done on Dr Dao too. The lawyer mentioned that Dr Dao is still very shaken and alluded to possible mental 'injuries' too.

Asking for a psych eval will be opening a can of worms that won't help him seeing as how he has a history of diagnosed issues.
 
Asking for a psych eval will be opening a can of worms that won't help him seeing as how he has a history of diagnosed issues.

Thats true, but they are clearly laying the ground for some sort of emotional distress angle to the lawsuit too, with all the talk about Dr Dao being shaken and in shock, not to mention the bit about this incident being more distressing then his escape from Vietnam.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
67
Guests online
3,676
Total visitors
3,743

Forum statistics

Threads
592,112
Messages
17,963,389
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top