Man Dragged off United Airlines/Flight Overbooked, April 2017

[Bently]

Actually customers can be deemed volunteers or invols. Two different criteria with two different forms of compensation.
And so it goes.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Exactly the point! Best practices imo for an airline to do it voluntarily. This is a worst case scenario (pfff..before shaming and blaming the passenger) of involuntary.

 

[Hapworth]

Exactly the point! Best practices imo for an airline to do it voluntarily. This is a worst case scenario (pfff..before shaming and blaming the passenger) of involuntary.

Yes true that. Worst case scenario. Like I said above..what a nightmare, specifically because the flight was fully boarded. I personally would never have fully boarded a flight that I knew a "must ride" crew was booked regardless if they had not shown up at the gate yet. Once the customers are onboard....its can be difficult to get volunteers. Best Practices can be your friend. Solicit early and often, especially for those late to the gate customers holding their Venti Soy Lattes in one hand and pulling their steamer trunks in the other. [emoji23]


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Rocco]

He is a victim and I stand behind what I said. People are invested in making him the bad guy and reassuring themselves they are better and therefore safe. It absolutely is judgmental, void of compassion and empathy. But I recognize why they need to do it.

You can speak for yourself but don't speak for others because they see the situation differently. It's offensive. Speaking for myself, I am not judgmental, void of compassion and empathy and I am not reassuring myself that I am better and therefore safe.

I simply have a different opinion than you.

 

[Hiandmighty]

United was clearly wrong, given how many times now the CEO has apologized.

Doctors have just as many mental illnesses as the general public does. This man may very well be considered disabled.

My son has diagnosed ADD and OCD and that is enough to get him an ADA designation. You wouldn't know this looking at him.

If this doc can prove that he was considered disabled before he boarded, the sky's the limit with how much money he is going to get from United.

 

[1&2&3]

After reading enough posts, it appears the next available flight was not until the next afternoon. It is upthread.

This would be the reason United did not get any volunteers to give up their seat IMO. Very few people want to spend an extra night out especially on a Sunday.

Did the $800 offer include a hotel stay for Sunday night, dinner, breakfast, and lunch if it was an afternoon flight? IIRC the flight was at 2:30 PM. Or was it a flat $800 and you were on your own whether you got a hotel or slept at the airport? It makes a big difference as to how much of that money it will cost you to be inconvenienced by United.

 

[Hapworth]

After reading enough posts, it appears the next available flight was not until the next afternoon. It is upthread.

This would be the reason United did not get any volunteers to give up their seat IMO. Very few people want to spend an extra night out especially on a Sunday.

Did the $800 offer include a hotel stay for Sunday night, dinner, breakfast, and lunch if it was an afternoon flight? IIRC the flight was at 2:30 PM. Or was it a flat $800 and you were on your own whether you got a hotel or slept at the airport? It makes a big difference as to how much of that money it will cost you to be inconvenienced by United.

Yes..^^^^ Exactly my thoughts as well. So many unknowns.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[kaen]

I am weighing in late on this discussion. I am appalled by what happened to this person. The definition of boarding seems to be an issue for some. From my perspective the man was on the plane, in his seat, and ready to go. The airline blew it.

On a personal note, I have been in a situation where I needed to be somewhere or lose my job and this may be the case for many on flights. If this Dr. did have surgery booked for the following morning, it is important to note that he is on the hook for the staff and the room fees. With a spouse who recently had to have emergency surgery on a holiday weekend, our doctor was clear that it cost more to perform the surgery although insurance would never pay and help him recoup the costs (conversation was friendly and part of the dialogue as we waited for staff to come in to do the support needed for the surgery, not in anyway threatening but another consult doctor had tried to push the surgical option earlier because he didn't want to have to do the more expensive weekend time) The profit margin for many doctors is not what we all think. Their customer service can be the difference between a thriving practice and a failing one--- not unlike many other businesses.

From the compensation side, I think fewer people are willing to take the offers now because there are far fewer flights and less inter-company accommodations made. If you volunteer the time frame for getting home is more often the next day rather than a number of hours later. I understand why less people do it. I had been a person who would offer to give up my seat (young and flexible time wise) but the last time I did-- I didn't get home until almost 36 hours later. The deal ceased to be worth it.

I have watched as airlines and attendants have become ruder and more contentious about passengers. On one hand, flight attendants have to keep the company line, are fearful of their lives with "belligerent" passengers, and are asked to perform more with fewer crew. With baggage fees climbing, a .4 ounce bag of pretzels with 2 oz.of icy soda, overbooked flights/no assigned seats, and smaller seat/leg space, the customers feel less compelled to be understanding. Coupled with the hostile atmosphere of the TSA, I think that passengers feel an us versus them situation happens on the plane, without even asking for more concessions. We have a crisis on our hands----and it is no wonder that situations are bubbling up everywhere. Passengers see attendants not as the title implies but as unlikely to be compassionate and helpful. Rather customers see attendants as sheriffs who are just waiting to put them in their place and remind them of how inconsequential they are. The attendants see the passengers as inherently pains in the necks who always want something-- but this is their business, customer service.

IMO, United has an opportunity to rebuild the idea of customer service while educating the flying public. If a customer has fewer rights, maybe the airlines can give them some bones like comfortable seats, less cattle like conditions. We already have fewer airline and trip options. I am not sure of the economics here but... something has to give. Transparency is a sham in this industry...their contracts are so complicated I can't read them, just like when I agree to a new app or program on my computer. I just know that anything written screws me and gives them all the rights/permissions they can muster. Yet, I have to fly for work because I can't drive 3,500 miles for a business meeting 3x times a month.

 

[musicaljoke]

Transport Minister Marc Garneau issued a pointed warning Thursday to all airlines operating in Canada: forcibly removing passengers from overbooked airplanes will not be tolerated by the federal government.

Garneau issued a letter to the heads of every airline that flies in and out of the country to warn them that an incident like the one that injured an American doctor earlier this week is not to happen in Canada.

The warning goes out not just to Canadian airlines such as Air Canada and WestJet, but also to international airlines that fly in and out of the country — a category to which United Airlines itself belongs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/garneau-transport-minister-letter-airlines-united-1.4070327

 

[emirates1957]

You were incorrect in your wording/understanding.They were not "standby" crew. They were confirmed crew holding space onto the flight. The flight became overbooked at some point. I'm still curious to know when the crew was confirmed onto to the flight (before or during the boarding process).Either way, its an event that happens throughout the industry. Crews are rerouted to recover other potential cancelled flights that you yourself may have been booked on due to weather events, mechanicals, ground stops/atc, curfews, etc. As I mentioned above in previous posts, its happened to me during the boarding process. I handled it differently however. Experience counts for something in this industry.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Only time crew are on standby is if they are on staff travel. It may have been an operational requirement e.g: original crew may have gone out of hours hence the reason to get a deadheading crew to mer the A/C post haste (at the last minute), whereby a a fare paying pax has to be offloaded. Same with checked in baggage if an airline had to offload baggage say to weight requirements pax baggage would be offloaded whilst post office mail would remain on board. All airlines have a priority system. In my opinion still doesn't excuse this disgraceful situation.

 

[ElleElle]

After reading enough posts, it appears the next available flight was not until the next afternoon. It is upthread.

This would be the reason United did not get any volunteers to give up their seat IMO. Very few people want to spend an extra night out especially on a Sunday.

Did the $800 offer include a hotel stay for Sunday night, dinner, breakfast, and lunch if it was an afternoon flight? IIRC the flight was at 2:30 PM. Or was it a flat $800 and you were on your own whether you got a hotel or slept at the airport? It makes a big difference as to how much of that money it will cost you to be inconvenienced by United.

As far I know it was $800 in vouchers, plus 1 night in a hotel, and a flight 21 hours later.

 

[ElleElle]

I've been bumped off a flight, due the plane that arrived at my departure city was late due to thunderstorms in the East.

I was called FIRST to the customer desk, advised of the situation. Advised I get on the flight 24 hours from the time of this one, seat in the front, hotel voucher, taxi voucher and meal voucher. SO I went to hotel, took a hot bath, ordered in pizza, watched TV, played games ... woke up had a nice hot breakfast ...

As much as I wanted to get home, I took it because, hey, ***** happens ... At least they were nice about it. (WJ).

 

[Rocco]

I am weighing in late on this discussion. I am appalled by what happened to this person. The definition of boarding seems to be an issue for some. From my perspective the man was on the plane, in his seat, and ready to go. The airline blew it.

On a personal note, I have been in a situation where I needed to be somewhere or lose my job and this may be the case for many on flights. If this Dr. did have surgery booked for the following morning, it is important to note that he is on the hook for the staff and the room fees. With a spouse who recently had to have emergency surgery on a holiday weekend, our doctor was clear that it cost more to perform the surgery although insurance would never pay and help him recoup the costs (conversation was friendly and part of the dialogue as we waited for staff to come in to do the support needed for the surgery, not in anyway threatening but another consult doctor had tried to push the surgical option earlier because he didn't want to have to do the more expensive weekend time) The profit margin for many doctors is not what we all think. Their customer service can be the difference between a thriving practice and a failing one--- not unlike many other businesses.

From the compensation side, I think fewer people are willing to take the offers now because there are far fewer flights and less inter-company accommodations made. If you volunteer the time frame for getting home is more often the next day rather than a number of hours later. I understand why less people do it. I had been a person who would offer to give up my seat (young and flexible time wise) but the last time I did-- I didn't get home until almost 36 hours later. The deal ceased to be worth it.

I have watched as airlines and attendants have become ruder and more contentious about passengers. On one hand, flight attendants have to keep the company line, are fearful of their lives with "belligerent" passengers, and are asked to perform more with fewer crew. With baggage fees climbing, a .4 ounce bag of pretzels with 2 oz.of icy soda, overbooked flights/no assigned seats, and smaller seat/leg space, the customers feel less compelled to be understanding. Coupled with the hostile atmosphere of the TSA, I think that passengers feel an us versus them situation happens on the plane, without even asking for more concessions. We have a crisis on our hands----and it is no wonder that situations are bubbling up everywhere. Passengers see attendants not as the title implies but as unlikely to be compassionate and helpful. Rather customers see attendants as sheriffs who are just waiting to put them in their place and remind them of how inconsequential they are. The attendants see the passengers as inherently pains in the necks who always want something-- but this is their business, customer service.

IMO, United has an opportunity to rebuild the idea of customer service while educating the flying public. If a customer has fewer rights, maybe the airlines can give them some bones like comfortable seats, less cattle like conditions. We already have fewer airline and trip options. I am not sure of the economics here but... something has to give. Transparency is a sham in this industry...their contracts are so complicated I can't read them, just like when I agree to a new app or program on my computer. I just know that anything written screws me and gives them all the rights/permissions they can muster. Yet, I have to fly for work because I can't drive 3,500 miles for a business meeting 3x times a month.

He did not have surgery booked for the next morning. He practices internal medicine at an outpatient facility once a week.

 

[PaperDoll]

I get what you're saying, but think about it as a whole experience, not just what he went through in the two minutes we saw recorded.
Every news outlet, social media outlet, every person he knows, every person he doesn't even know saw his naked chest as his limp body was dragged down an aisle with his glasses askew and blood dripping from his mouth, filmed from multiple angles. His coworkers, his superiors, his staff, his family, his friends, his mentors, his clients, his neighbors, etc...everyone has seen this embarrassing experience from multiple angles. Everyone has seen him rambling all bloodied when he ran back onto the plane in confusion. People are commenting on his ability to be a physician. People are attacking his character. He may lose clients and also be unable to obtain new clients. Not to mention all of the comments, the delving into and massive publishing of his past situations and mental health issues. This is all so traumatizing to experience. Certain cultures would take even more shame from something like this occurring. We have no idea what all it has entailed for him but it seems truly horrifying IMO.

I never thought of it that way :blushing: You are correct. Now a days, nothing is private and that is sad

 

[gitana1]

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.

I've thought that for awhile in many situations. In this one I think maybe it is more that a lot of people feel only certain people, like the wealthy for example, should be allowed to assert rights. It's almost an envy in some cases of anyone who is close to themselves in economic or social status who dares to stand up for something. There has also been this creeping subservience to and vehement defense of big business in this country that has developed over the years, as well as this pervasive attitude that people act "entitled" when they should simply take what they are given without complaint, even if they rightfully earned more.

I find it quite odd. To put a corporation over the dignity and rights of a human being is just odd to me. Especially when the "inconvenience" to the human can be great when you consider the stressors of travelling, being trapped in a metal tube for hours, the increasing lack of customer service and deterioration of air travel, the cost of missing work or dearly needed vacation days, or family events of various significance, or health-related appointments, etc., that a delayed flight can cause, balanced with the inconvenience to the airline, when they have to either up the price of getting someone to volunteer, or perhaps not overbook.

I mean United earned a net profit of 2.3 BILLION last year. But people are screaming about how they have the right and authority to have a passenger yanked off a plan because hell, they can do whatever they want. It's their policy! As if that makes it legal or just or ok. So the passenger who st6ands to lose a lot is a brat and only inconvenienced, but the rich corporation has rights that must be defended at all costs. Bizarre: http://atwonline.com/airline-financials/united-earns-23-billion-2016-net-profit

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.

Me too. I would likely have simply left. That doesn't mean though, that had I chosen to stand my ground and remain in the seat I paid for, that the airline would've had the right to order me bodily moved from the airplane. If I started threatening, cursing at people, making nasty or racist or sexist remarks as I sat there, that's different.

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.

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.

^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.)

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

Apparently, despite your knowledge of the law, you don't really know what you're talking about. :scared:

people keep claiming this but i cant find anything that addresses it directly - other than just quoting the law/policy (i have seen it) can you post proof that it is in fact a hard cap on what airlines are legally allowed to offer and not just a liability limit? thanks..

Yup. Once again, putting a cap on what the airlines is ALLOWED to offer would be an impermissible interference with commerce per the Commerce Clause of the constitution. I guess I can understand why they are confused but a cap protects the company. It doesn't bind them.

Wecan thank many American voters for this. Remember deregulation? The airline industry was deregulated. Here we are with the results.

Yup. I sure do. And now we have a monopoly.

We are fortunate to have verified attorneys posting on the thread.

I don't think that's relevant to some!

Ok, here is the full quote from the link:

"When problems arise, your rights as a passenger do not come from consumer-friendly state laws. Instead, they are dictated by international treaties, federal statutes, and other regulations that sole practitioners are not used to dealing with".
http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...gations_airlines_and_rights_passengers.htm l

The subject seems complex based on the link from the ABA. As a result, "Absolutely, positively" might not reflect the actuality. Though I wont dispute the attorneys on this board, I"ll still take the information with a few grains of salt.

As aside note, I am willing to bet the attorneys here did not use the "absolutely positively" type language. Attorneys rarely use absolute terms.

So non-lawyers posting here should be able to understand these complex regulations and laws better than lawyers? I guess that's possible. But if our opinions don't seem that credible, which I get, how about this:

Judge Napolitano - judge, attorney and professor:

"By dislodging this passenger against his will, United violated its contractual obligation," Napolitano said. "He bought the ticket, he passed the TSA, he was in his seat, he has every right to stay there."
He said the man "absolutely" has a case against United if he files a lawsuit, because of the "inconvenience and public humiliation."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/...video-could-sue-airline-judge-napolitano-says

Napolitano is a "graduate of Princeton University and Notre Dame Law School. He was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1975.[5] After law school, Napolitano entered private practice as a litigator. Napolitano first taught law for a brief period in 1980–1981 at Delaware Law School (then-Widener). Napolitano sat on the New Jersey bench from 1987 to 1995, becoming the state's youngest then-sitting Superior Court judge.
He resigned his judgeship in 1995 for private practice. He also served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law for 11 years from 1989–2000. Napolitano is a distinguished visiting professor at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches courses on advanced and introductory constitutional law and jurisprudence, and has begun a renewed endeavor to developing his natural law jurisprudence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano#Early_life_and_judicial_and_acad emic_career

Aaron Podhurst - trial lawyer for aviation cases:

Trial lawyer Aaron Podhurst, who represents plaintiffs in aviation cases, said he believes Dao can make a strong civil case based on the assault and battery that appears to have occurred. United could be liable, and Dao could also sue Chicago authorities for use of excessive force, Podhurst said.
"This case is a very strong case for the passenger," Podhurst said. He added that he expects Dao would be able to secure a settlement.
[video]http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/companies/united-legal-issues/index.html[/video]

Andrew Harakas - head of aviation law group:

Passengers agree to a litany of terms in any airline's "contract of carriage," which they agree to when purchasing a ticket. But the agreement doesn't sign away the right to sue if the airline treats a passenger in a manner that breaches the law.
"If you're injured, or dragged off the airplane, or falsely arrested, you can sue," said Andrew Harakas, head of the aviation law group at Clyde & Co. [video]http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/companies/united-legal-issues/index.html[/video]

David Katzman - aviation lawyer:

"You could give this to a group of first-year lawyers and they could list all the claims this guy has," he said, naming intentional infliction of emotional distress in addition to assault and battery.
[video]http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/companies/united-legal-issues/index.html[/video]

Jens David Ohlin - professor of law and Dean at Cornell Law School:

Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. So Rule 25 does not apply
There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold. And he was not removed due to being disorderly, so Rule 21 would not apply. And the flight was not oversold anyhow. Further, neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.
He had already boarded. He was not denied boarding, even though the plane was still boarding passengers. So he could not be denied transport.
The airline did not comply with its requirements, so it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach, including the injuries sustained by the police. http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

John Banzhaf - public interest law professor:

Having boarded and been seated, a passenger is generally entitled to keep a seat and remain on the flight, except in rare instances: e.g., a legitimate concern about terrorism, unruly or drunken behavior by the passenger, it is suddenly discovered that he is ill, is using a forged or stolen ticket, etc. Here, none of these rare exceptions applied, so the carrier had no right to eject him once he had validly boarded, says Banzhaf.
Here, since there clearly was no emergency, the passenger posed no threat and did not fight back, and there would have been room for addition security personnel to restrain him with less violence, and not literally drag him down the floor of the passenger cabin, a jury could easily find that the amount of force used was more than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances, and that the cabin crew should have taken whatever steps were necessary to see that the force used was no more than what was reasonable.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/04/united-airlines-eject-passengers/

 

[kaen]

He did not have surgery booked for the next morning. He practices internal medicine at an outpatient facility once a week.

That may be true. I know it was something said early on. Did he have office hours on the day after the original flight?

 

[Hiandmighty]

He did not have surgery booked for the next morning. He practices internal medicine at an outpatient facility once a week.

So then he had clinic with as many as 60-70 patients on Monday. What point are you making?

 

[FelicityLemon]

United was clearly wrong, given how many times now the CEO has apologized.

Doctors have just as many mental illnesses as the general public does. This man may very well be considered disabled.

My son has diagnosed ADD and OCD and that is enough to get him an ADA designation. You wouldn't know this looking at him.

If this doc can prove that he was considered disabled before he boarded, the sky's the limit with how much money he is going to get from United.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I genuinely have been thinking about this because I think it's an interesting point (it also pertains to something unrelated that I've been wondering about for years). How would it help his case unless he could prove that staff knew he had a disability before trying to remove him?

If he can prove he was legally disabled before he boarded, couldn't it also detract from any reward he might get? I mean as opposed to his resulting injuries and any alleged disability from being forcibly removed from the plane? He clearly has injuries, I'm just so shocked that the damage was so much because the face bump into the armrest didn't look like it could break a nose and knock out teeth. (I have other thoughts about that...) I only watched the video once. I did question the veracity of a concussion, but found that almost any facial injury could cause one.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Some would consider it judgmental to assume that people who have a different point of view are void of compassion and empathy. That's just not true. Facts are facts.

If the passenger had handled it differently and didn't escalate the situation, they wouldn't have physically tried to remove him and he wouldn't have gotten hurt. Facts are facts, he did what he did regardless of how any of us feel about it, they did what they did regardless of what any of us feel about it. The people who put their hands on him maybe could have handled it differently, but they didn't. A perfect world would have been United offering $5,000 CASH, a paid-for room at a nearby hotel if need be. I'll bet there would have been plenty of volunteers! There were several directions this could have gone, but it didn't. If, if, if.


A violent criminal with 25+ years of convictions for burglary, domestic violence, armed robbery gets killed while committing yet another crime (after breaking into the home, but killed this time before he could rape her again or kill her as he'd threatened several times) and there's an uproar because he's now a "victim" and had been on the right path. He'd even been taking his mother to church every Sunday! I do make a distinction; he didn't deserve my sympathy. That doesn't make me devoid of compassion and empathy. I feel for his victims, I feel for the neighbor who shot the criminal in order to protect the woman. He was traumatized, too. Some people think they'd be ready to hurt someone or even kill someone in order to protect another human being, but I think most aren't prepared for the emotions even when they did the only thing they could. I feel for some of the criminal's family, but only those who didn't support his criminal and violent activities. Yup, call me judgmental.

The violently abused woman in the home, the injured passenger and the dead rapist can all be considered "victims". I am most definitely not equating the woman, and the passenger to the rapist; I am making a gross statement to be clear that there are victims and there are victims. It's possible to make yourself a victim. People do it every day. Some do nothing to invite an attack, others put themselves in situations aware, but unbelieving something could happen, others do it and don't care, others do it deliberately to set it up so they can be a victim , but it can turn out much worse than they imagined. Not everything is a lawsuit. The other passengers suing? Get a freaking grip. I'd be more peeved at the passenger wondering why didn't they just get up and go? Did any of the other passengers say "Stop this idiocy! Let angry man keep his seat, I'll give up mine and my child's so he can stay!"

*crickets*

 

[al66pine]

If they plan to sue (I would imagine there will be a class action suit), they should refuse to accept the reimbursement from UA.

Class action against United Airlines? If filed, who would be members of the plaintiff's/Dr. Dao's class?

"...A class action, ... lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member of that group....
"The typicality requirement ensures that the claims or defenses of the named plaintiff are typical of those of everyone else in the class...." *

Would Dr Dao's experience & claim of assault & battery be typical of the experience & claims of hundreds of other United Airline passengers, to meet the typicality requirement. Could a group meet the other three requirements for a class action below? *

IDK.

__________________________________________________________
*. "Class certification Under Rule 23 [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]
"For the case to proceed ...court must certify the class under Rule 23 ... For a class to be certified, the moving party must meet all of the criteria listed under Rule 23(a), and at least one of the criteria listed under Rule 23(b).[SUP][8][/SUP]
The 23(a) criteria are referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.[SUP][14][/SUP] Numerosity refers to the number of people in the class. To be certified, the class has to have enough members that simply adding each of them as a named party to the lawsuit would be impractical.[SUP][8][/SUP] There is no bright-line rule to determine numerosity, but classes with hundreds of members are generally deemed to be sufficiently numerous.[SUP][14][/SUP] To satisfy commonality, there must be a common question of law and fact such that "determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke."[SUP][15][/SUP] The typicality requirement ensures that the claims or defenses of the named plaintiff are typical of those of everyone else in the class.[SUP][8][/SUP] Finally, adequacy requirement states that the named plaintiff must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the absent class members.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP]" [/SUP](with some ^ bbm & sbm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action.

 

[Gunslinging Granny]

Omg. He had two teeth broken out, his nose broken, and suffered a concussion. He's going to become the new owner of United.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017...-airlines-passenger-lost-2-teeth-nose-broken/