Man Dragged off United Airlines/Flight Overbooked, April 2017

[kanzz]

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.

Ok, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. Didn't realize it required hundreds.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

 

[Gunslinging Granny]

When the flight attendants saw what was occurring, they could have intervened. They could have told the security officers to stop and leave the plane, but they didn't. Dr. Dao should take legal against them too.

 

[emirates1957]

When the flight attendants saw what was occurring, they could have intervened. They could have told the security officers to stop and leave the plane, but they didn't. Dr. Dao should take legal against them too.

The Captain is command, if something happened like that here we would need the skippers okay......Flight Attendants would not be required to intervene.

 

[dotr]

http://www.citynews.ca/2017/04/13/appalling-united-airlines-incident-wont-tolerated-canada-garneau/

[h=1]'Appalling' United Airlines incident won't be tolerated in Canada[/h]

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.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

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




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.



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



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.



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



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



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/

Rbbm

Is it relevant to you?

 

[gitana1]

Rbbm

Is it relevant to you?

I'm not sure what you mean. Is it relevant to me that we have attorneys on the thread who have been explaining since the beginning that the law doesn't allow a company to get away with what United did? Well I'm one of them. (Although I think SBHack is much more knowledgeable and on target with her or his explanations of the law than I have been).

But what I have seen is that some disregard even expert legal opinions. So at a certain point, I don't know what else can be said to help people understand. Or if anything else should be said to convince those who are so vested in the idea that United is blameless that they actually try to change the meaning of verbs!

It is bizarre. IMO.

 

[al66pine]

Ok, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. Didn't realize it required hundreds.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

kanzz
Sorry I did a poor job of wording. No, did not intend to say or imply you are wrong. As I said, IDK. My apologies.

Just thinking about concept of a class action lawsuit, presumably U/A passengers against U/A - the deepest pockets I see of the various entities involved.

IIUC this plane did not accommodate hundreds, so does not seem imo a proposed plaintiff class could be composed of the individuals on that particular flight that day and prob'ly an insufficient # to be certified for a class action.

What about other passengers on other U/A flights on other days, w other departure locations & arrival destinations, who have been bumped from some of those flights? If some suffered bodily injuries (e.g., broken nose, broken teeth, cuts & bleeding, bruises, etc.), doubtful imo hundreds of passengers were injured like that.

Maybe legal professionals here could weigh in about feasibility of a class action.* For them, below is quote from my post.

________________________________________________________________________________
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.

 

[Rocco]

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

The point is he did not have surgery scheduled in the morning. The OP pointed out the ramifications of a patient having to reschedule surgery so the increase in urgency to get home. That doesn't apply here. I've read that he had surgery scheduled the next day here and other places multiple times. Repeat misinformation enough times and it starts to become a fact that's really an untrue rumor and gets woven into the rationale of why this man urgently needed to keep his seat.

 

[emirates1957]

I'm not sure what you mean. Is it relevant to me that we have attorneys on the thread who have been explaining since the beginning that the law doesn't allow a company to get away with what United did? Well I'm one of them. (Although I think SBHack is much more knowledgeable and on target with her or his explanations of the law than I have been).

But what I have seen is that some disregard even expert legal opinions. So at a certain point, I don't know what else can be said to help people understand. Or if anything else should be said to convince those who are so vested in the idea that United is blameless that they actually try to change the meaning of verbs!

It is bizarre. IMO.

Thank you Gitana1, you make sense to me and I'm sure many others.

 

[Rocco]

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

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

I know you have stated a couple of times that you would be interested in knowing when the flight crew that needed the seats arrived. I found a link that answers your question.

“There was a Republic crew that needed to take a flight out of Louisville the next day and they sent their crew to get on that plane to Louisville. Somebody at Republic clearly knew they were sending that crew to the gate, but they didn’t get there until after the plane was bordered.”

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features...ines-incident-former-spirit-airlines-ceo.html

 

[Elley Mae]

“In a directive in January, we ordered them to not use the word ‘police.’ To use the word ‘security’ on their jackets,” Evans said.

But Burke pointedly noted what the videos show: that the word “police” was still on the uniform of at least one officer involved in removing 69-year-old Dr. David Dao off a United Express jet bound for Louisville Sunday evening.

“Incorrectly,” the commissioner interjected.

Burke countered, “Your officer was wearing a jacket with the word ‘police’ on it. Why didn’t you enforce your order?”

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/after-dao-united-incident-city-will-review-all-airport-policies/

 

[drjones]

I'm not sure what you mean. Is it relevant to me that we have attorneys on the thread who have been explaining since the beginning that the law doesn't allow a company to get away with what United did? Well I'm one of them. (Although I think SBHack is much more knowledgeable and on target with her or his explanations of the law than I have been).

But what I have seen is that some disregard even expert legal opinions. So at a certain point, I don't know what else can be said to help people understand. Or if anything else should be said to convince those who are so vested in the idea that United is blameless that they actually try to change the meaning of verbs!

It is bizarre. IMO.

i dont think even this will stop people from trying to defend what United did but United just made it a rule that they will never do this again - they will only forcibly remove a passenger from a flight for security or safety reasons from now on. there were 3 or so other things they are going to do to address this but i cant find them in writing yet (i just saw it live on TV). one was more training and one was reviewing their policies for involving security/police in disputes.

 

[emirates1957]

I know you have stated a couple of times that you would be interested in knowing when the flight crew that needed the seats arrived. I found a link that answers your question.

“There was a Republic crew that needed to take a flight out of Louisville the next day and they sent their crew to get on that plane to Louisville. Somebody at Republic clearly knew they were sending that crew to the gate, but they didn’t get there until after the plane was bordered.”

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features...ines-incident-former-spirit-airlines-ceo.html

Rocco, it's not that simple, crew can be repositioned in a heart beat....their A/C may have been delayed for many reasons consequently arriving minutes to the flight closing out. At the end of the day deadheading crew will go head and fly 100/200/300 pax to their destination which does not equate/justify offloading 1 passenger.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

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.

Really? So a rape victim's past sexual history is relevant? Or a mugging victim's habit of walking late at night? If a prostitute is murdered her history of arrests is relevant?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[JanetElaine]

“In a directive in January, we ordered them to not use the word ‘police.’ To use the word ‘security’ on their jackets,” Evans said.

But Burke pointedly noted what the videos show: that the word “police” was still on the uniform of at least one officer involved in removing 69-year-old Dr. David Dao off a United Express jet bound for Louisville Sunday evening.

“Incorrectly,” the commissioner interjected.

Burke countered, “Your officer was wearing a jacket with the word ‘police’ on it. Why didn’t you enforce your order?”

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/after-dao-united-incident-city-will-review-all-airport-policies/

That article is well worth the read.

I also found this part interesting: "Redding also revealed that it is not the city’s policy to “interfere” when airlines have customer service issues." (BBM, and Redding is the security chief at O'Hare airport).

That's exactly what this was - a customer service issue. And the United crew called the cops or security or whatever their name is to solve it. Such poor judgment. And now they have a PR nightmare on their hands (and more).

 

[Karinna]

(quote)
United, like all airlines, has protocol in place for overbooking incidents, said Mahany. Under United’s Rule 25: Denied Boarding Compensation, the airline lays out its responsibilities in dealing with an overbooked flight, but the rule deals only with passengers who have not yet boarded the plane.

Per these rules, the company would have had to deny entry to the passenger before, not after, he boarded the plane. In order to require someone to leave the plane who is already seated, Mahany said, they would need to provide a lawful reason.
“If they’re not dressed appropriately, if they have certain communicable diseases, if they’re drunk, if they’re violent, you can remove them,” he said. “If they don’t turn off their cell phone when they’re supposed to, you can remove them. If they won’t obey lawful instructions from a crew member, you can remove them. But telling someone, ‘Hey, we’ve overbooked, get off the plane,’ that wouldn’t be a lawful instruction.”

LawNewz, a website run by legal correspondent Dan Abrams, agreed that the company acted illegally when it forced the passenger to de-plane. The Department of Transportation's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings said in a statement Tuesday that it had begun reviewing what happened on the flight.
http://www.ibtimes.com/united-airli...ane-was-illegal-says-lawyer-heres-why-2524701

 

[Karinna]

(quote)
This might sound like it’s coming from left field, but what I’m sensing here — what lies at the root of this unfortunate episode — was a lack of empowerment. There is no reason that an overbooked flight should result in the forced, physical removal of a passenger by law enforcement. There had to be a better solution. Yet nobody came up with one. Why?

Not all flights are routinely overbooked, and for those that are, it’s done in accordance with tracked data that predicts how many people with reservations are actually going to show up. Once in a while, for any number of reasons, those predictions are off, and there are more passengers than seats. When this happens, somebody, one way or the other, has to give up his or her seat. Who that person is will vary with a somewhat complicated seating hierarchy (when you bought your ticket, when you checked in, etc., are among the variables). To avoid it coming to this, carriers will offer a reward, usually in the form of a travel voucher, in exchange for a seat, and usually with the guarantee of a seat on a flight later that day. The value of the reward is incrementally increased until somebody takes the bait. Almost always they find enough volunteers.
http://www.askthepilot.com/passenger-forcibly-removed/

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I've been bumped from one flight and one paid-for reserved train seat for a long-planned trip. Each was disappointing of course, but not worth causing a scene, throwing a tantrum, etc. because it wasn't the fault of the flight attendants or the train attendant or the other passengers and it wouldn't have changed anything for the better. I sucked it up and considered it a pay-it-forward that someone else could get on their way to something life changing perhaps or even something that was just plain silly fun. Stuff happens. Good stuff happens to me far more than negative; maybe it's the way I view it. Not saying mean people don't try their best to be nasty or hurtful, they do.

I'm pretty sure that not many people like having to tell a passenger they have to leave their flight or trip. I handled each episode in a different way and none involved having a tantrum.

The older I get, the less of a shrinking violet I am (obviously) but I pick my battles and choose not to add unnecessary stress to myself by getting angry about something that's not life-changing. There are many other things in the world that deserve people's anger and action.

How we handle disappointments affects our health and general happiness. I don't want to have a stroke or a heart attack or cause someone else misery by being a jerk myself.

It's all well and good to be right legally, but it doesn't mean **** in reality. This guy's reality was physical damage, he embarrassed himself, some of his past deeds have been published for all who cares to read about them.

He may have been legally within his rights, but it didn't matter at the moment. Some will say that his probable huge payoff will make it better. Not worth it to me. No amount of money would make me want to risk being physically harmed even if it was incidental.

We're all individuals who have different thoughts on what is right for ourselves.

eace:

I see what you're saying... but... then might makes right and bullies win.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Hiandmighty]

I'm not sure what you mean. Is it relevant to me that we have attorneys on the thread who have been explaining since the beginning that the law doesn't allow a company to get away with what United did? Well I'm one of them. (Although I think SBHack is much more knowledgeable and on target with her or his explanations of the law than I have been).

But what I have seen is that some disregard even expert legal opinions. So at a certain point, I don't know what else can be said to help people understand. Or if anything else should be said to convince those who are so vested in the idea that United is blameless that they actually try to change the meaning of verbs!

It is bizarre. IMO.

When I pointed this out yesteday on a different discussion elsewhere, I was told to F-off

United did not have a right to do any of it

 

[Hiandmighty]

Really? So a rape victim's past sexual history is relevant? Or a mugging victim's habit of walking late at night? If a prostitute is murdered her history of arrests is relevant?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I have to admit I thought the discussions about his "relevant" past and how "if he only would have"... dangerously close to... if that college girl hadn't gotten drunk and walked around alone, she wouldn't have fallen prey to that serial killer...

He is a victim whether you like him or not