Man says JetBlue made him sit on toilet

Townhall News ^ | Tuesday, May 13, 2008 | SAMUEL MAULL

[VRWCmember]

A New York City man is suing JetBlue Airways Corp. for more than $2 million because he says a pilot made him give up his seat to a flight attendant and sit on the toilet for more than three hours on a flight from California.

Gokhan Mutlu, of Manhattan's Inwood section, says in court papers the pilot told him to "go 'hang out' in the bathroom" about 90 minutes into the San Diego to New York flight because the flight attendant complained that the "jump seat" she was assigned was uncomfortable, the lawsuit said.

Mutlu was traveling on a a "buddy pass," a standby travel voucher that JetBlue employees give to friends, from New York to San Diego on Feb. 16, and returned to New York on Feb. 23, the lawsuit said.

Initially, Mutlu was told a flight attendant had taken the last seat on the plane, but then he was advised she would sit in the employee "jump seat," meaning he could have the last seat, the lawsuit said.

The pilot told him 1 1/2 hours into the five-hour flight that he would have to relinquish the seat to the flight attendant, court papers say. But the pilot said that Mutlu could not sit in the jump seat because only JetBlue employees were permitted to sit there, the lawsuit said.

When Mutlu expressed reluctance to go sit in the bathroom, the pilot, who was not named in the lawsuit, told him that "he was the pilot, that this was his plane, under his command that (Mutlu) should be grateful for being on board," the lawsuit said.

When the aircraft hit turbulence and passengers were directed to return to their seats, but "the plaintiff had no seat to return to, sitting on a toilet stool with no seat belts," court papers say.

Some time later, a male flight attendant knocked on the restroom door and told Mutlu he could return to his original seat, court papers say.

Mutlu's lawsuit, filed Friday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, says JetBlue negligently endangered him by not providing him with a seat with a safety belt or harness, in violation of federal law.

A JetBlue spokesman declined comment on the lawsuit Monday.

[VRWCmember]

Sounds like JetBlue is trying to take its reputation to new depths. But $2 Million??!! Give me a break!

[CSM]

Did his legs fall asleep?

[NormsRevenge]

Soros SoreArse Airlines

[WayneS]

The solution is simply.

The FAA needs to mandate seat belts on the toilets in commercial airliners.

;^)

[Hegemony Cricket]

JetBlue’s new slogan: “When you’ve gotta go, fly JetBlue!”

[svcw]

This story seems so hard to believe - the smell test, doesn’t pass.

[VRWCmember]

This story seems so hard to believe - the smell test, doesn’t pass.

The story didn't say he passed anything -- in which case it definitely would have smelled.

[VRWCmember]

Did his legs fall asleep?

Don't know, but you would think they would at least have upgraded him to the toilet in first class rather than the little dinky one at the back of the plane.

[Moose4]

$2 million is a bit much. But forcing a passenger (even somebody flying non-rev) to sit on an unbelted toilet in a situation where the seat belt sign is on, that’s a big no-no. It sounds like a screwup that he was even booked into a seat on that flight, but once he was, seems to me the flight attendant should’ve stayed in the jump seat (isn’t that what they’re there for?).

}:-)4

[raccoonradio]

Sorry sir, no XM sat. radio & sat. TV in your new seat...

Flew JB last year; this year in two diff. trips am
going Southwest (ding!). When I go to Oakland a friend
from L.A. is going to fly JB to OAK and then prob
take Amtrak back

[Froufrou]

Gives new meaning to getting canned...ping!

[xsmommy]

i am laughing my behind off! xshub just flew JetBlue back from NYC yesterday!

[monday]

“told him that “he was the pilot, that this was his plane, under his command that (Mutlu) should be grateful for being on board,” the lawsuit said. “

Sounds to me like this particular pilot will be lucky if he gets to command a school bus from now on. No more flying for him.

[Anti-Bubba182]

This is the end of the “buddy pass”.

[BigFinn]

If the story is true ... he deserves every penny.
However, I can't imagine any airline would do such a thing. With all the regulations and precautions... very unlikely.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

JetLoo?

[SW6906]

Methinks the pilot and stewardess were more than close friends.....

[mysterio]

$2 million? Toss the case out as frivolous, possibly fine the man for wasting the court’s time.

[FortWorthPatriot]

Can you imagine him having to get out of the toilet each time a passenger needed to go? He'd have to stand outside until they were finished and then have to sit with whatever odor they had left behind afterwards.

Seriously, this is customer service at its worst. The pilot should have let the guy take the jump seat instead whether he was a JetBlue employee or not.

In a more perfect world, the filght attendant should have stayed with the jump seat in order to make the customer happy even if she was uncomfortable.

[MEGoody]

$2 million? Toss the case out as frivolous, possibly fine the man for wasting the court’s time.

I think he should sue the pilot personally - that's who was at fault (if this really happened - I have my doubts).

[VRWCmember]

JetLoo?

Best post of the day. How about JetBlueWater?

[NorCoGOP]

When Mutlu expressed reluctance to go sit in the bathroom, the pilot, who was not named in the lawsuit, told him that "he was the pilot, that this was his plane, under his command that (Mutlu) should be grateful for being on board," the lawsuit said.

If he didn't like it, he should have stepped outside!

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

There's got to be at least one “Al Bundy” on board any commercial jet. The Captain could have auctioned off the “privilege” of occupying the toilet for the entire flight.

[CharlesWayneCT]

There are things that make no sense in this story.

First, the flight attendent would have sat in the jump seat all the time. Why this ONE time she couldn’t?

Second, passengers aren’t allowed to sit in the toilet instead of their seats. So why, even if the pilot threw the guy out of his seat, why not let him in the jump seat? In other words, why would the pilot follow the rules about jump seats, if he was breaking the rules about kicking the guy out of his seat, and about making him sit in the toilet?

Third, there aren’t that many toilets on the planes. The idea that one would be shut for the entire flight, without anybody complaining, is very hard to believe.

Fourth, we are hearing about this because of a lawsuit. But I pay some attention to weird stories. It surely seems that this story would have been news when it first happened. Other passengers would have easily been able to corroberate the story.

I’m just speculating, of course, based on the limited knowledge from this story.

[Da Coyote]

This smells like a “RatherReport” (tm). Passengers are to be seated and belted in for takeoffs and landings. If this really happened, the pilot will be fired. Somehow, I don’t think that it did.

[cubreporter]

What’s odd about that? It IS his plane. He makes the decisions. Sounds like this guy was just a pain.

[cubreporter]

Mmmmm, wonder what evidence you have of that? Can you share it with the rest of us?

[Cyman]

I guess this guy’s attorney is the judge that sued the dry cleaners for 43 million bucks because they lost his pants

[Jagermonster]

$2 million? Toss the case out as frivolous, possibly fine the man for wasting the court’s time.

It is not the amount of requested damages that determines whether a case is frivolous. It is whether the facts add up to an illegal act.

Negligence is the simple misconduct basically doing something that is not what a reasonable person would do to care for another when they are supposed to be caring for them. In short, it is a "Hold muh beer" moment inflicted on someone you're supposed to be looking out for, such as your kids, the passenger in your car, or the passengers in your airplane. We all do dumb stuff from time to time, but most of the time, we're either lucky and nothing happens so nobody cares enough to take us to court about it, or something happens but nobody cares enough to take us to court about it.

Wikipedia has a decent explanation of the concept of negligence here if you are interested.

In this particular case, Mr. Mutlu is calling the airline on its stupidity, and I think justifiably so. The damages seem a bit steep, but I guarantee you JetBlue will settle this for a lot less than $2 million. JetBlue will get its smack on the wrist via the settlement, and probably send a memo to its pilots about doing idiotic things like this, and Mr. Mutlu will go away with a few dollars to make up for his treatment on the flight.

[mysterio]

Sitting on a toilet isn't worth $2 mil. And the fact that he is claiming that it is indicates he's only in it for financial gain. It's little more than extortion. Even though the airline made a mistake, he should still have the case thrown out to discourage others from filing similarly ridiculous lawsuits.

I should add that I hate planes and airline companies. I don't plan to ever get on another plane if I can help it.

[Political Junkie Too]

Perhaps the other passengers on the flight should file a class-action suit against JetBlue for denial of toilet services while one was occupied by this passenger for non-lavatory purposes?

-PJ

[VRWCmember]

The fact that things make no sense does not mean the story is false. People often do things that make no sense, often in violation of rules that are there to prevent those very things. If the plaintiff is not able to substantiate his claim, the case will probably be dismissed, and we’ll probably never hear anything else about it.

[Slings and Arrows]

Possible explanation:

The difference between a pilot and G-d is that G-d doesn’t think that he’s a pilot.

[JRios1968]

What a crappy flight

[monday]

“What’s odd about that? It IS his plane. He makes the decisions. Sounds like this guy was just a pain.”

I didn't say anything was odd? and no it isn't HIS plane, it's his ex employers plane.

Yeah, guys who don't like flying across the country on toilets are such pains aren't they? lol

[freespirited]

I have a serious question for one of the resident lawyers.

It sounds like this guy did not purchase a ticket from Jet Blue but rather flew at no charge. If that’s the case and this actually went to court, would that have any effect on what he is entitled to get from Jet Blue?

[Froufrou]

No shiat.

[JRios1968]

Our drink selection includes blue water...

[Jagermonster]

Sitting on a toilet isn't worth $2 mil. And the fact that he is claiming that it is indicates he's only in it for financial gain. It's little more than extortion. Even though the airline made a mistake, he should still have the case thrown out to discourage others from filing similarly ridiculous lawsuits.

I should add that I hate planes and airline companies. I don't plan to ever get on another plane if I can help it.

The judge cannot throw out the case just because the amount of damages requested is ridiculous. The amount of damages is going to have to be proven at trial, however. If it is a bench trial (which I doubt it will be), the judge will require the plaintiff to show that he was actually damaged to the tune of $2 million. If it is a jury trial (much more likely), the plaintiff is going to have to convince the jury that sitting in an airplane bathroom stall for the remainder of the flight is worth $2 million. I don't think he is going to be able to do either, and will, if victorious, be awarded a much smaller amount.

Regardless, it is inappropriate to dismiss a lawsuit preemptively because the plaintiff blows the situation all out of proportion. Imposing some artificial construct of perspective would require the legal system to decide the merits of a case before hearing all the facts and arguments of the parties. These are matters for the court to decide at trial, and resolve with a verdict, which is why we have a trial in the first place. At trial, the plaintiff is going to both have to prove that the events happened in a way that was illegal, and that he was damaged to whatever amount. If his claims are without merit, that will be revealed at trial, and the verdict will be appropriate.

If his claims are without merit, he is going to be stuck with not only his attorney's bill, but probably the legal fees of the airline. That's not going to be cheap, and a good attorney would warn him about that.

Even if the plaintiff is only in it for financial gain, it makes no difference because he is suing the company for mistreating him. The effect of the lawsuit is as much to punish JetBlue for its mistreatment of a customer (who, might I add, is entirely at its mercy) as it is to compensate Mr. Mutlu for being mistreated.

As a sidenote, if this had happened to you, it would be up to you to decide whether or not you felt it was worth suing over, and how much you thought you were damaged by your mistreatment. If you did sue, you could either take a settlement offer, or work your way through a trial. Either process would help you determine (outside of your own sole opinion) what the mistreatment actually cost you. It isn't pretty, but it is effective. This process is thus much better than a process wherein a judge dismisses your case because he feels you have an inflated opinion of the value of your injury.

[Political Junkie Too]

Do we know the distribution of actual damage and punitive damage? Don't these awards get inflated as an incentive for the company to not do this again?

-PJ

[Froufrou]

...and you can use the towel dispenser as your flotation device, should an emergency arise.

[Jagermonster]

As an addendum, the short of this is, as BigFinn says, is "If the story is true ... " I.e. if Mr. Mutlu can prove it all at trial, he can have it.

[mysterio]

The judge cannot look at a case where a man stood in a bathroom 3 hours and wants $2 million for it and just decide that the case is frivolous?

That's a frivolous case if I ever heard one.

The airline should offer him a free pass or a fruit basket or something. And a proper way for him to get even with them is to not buy any more tickets for their flights.

This case is absolutely ridiculous.

[beandog]

I’m not sure it’s worth $2 million but I’d sure give him a considerable sum. The pilot should be fired and the flight attendent should be told if she doesn’t like the seat she’s supposed to sit in she should leave also.

Everyone claiming it should be thrown out of court would be screaming their lungs out if it happened to them.

[Jagermonster]

Do we know the distribution of actual damage and punitive damage? Don't these awards get inflated as an incentive for the company to not do this again?

The story doesn't specifically say what the damages are, but I bet the vast majority of the damages are punitive, because "Mutlu was traveling on a a "buddy pass," a standby travel voucher that JetBlue employees give to friends." His actual damages are therefore probably not that great. I'm too lazy to look up the actual filing, so I don't know what the split actually is.

You are right about the punitive damages. They are awarded for exactly the reason you stated: as an incentive for the company to not do this again.

I am also thoroughly convinced that we are not getting the whole story from this article. I think that the cause of action has a sound principle in negligence, which requires a duty, a breach of the duty, causation, and damages. However, I think that there should be other causes of action. Federal airline regulations probably prohibit this sort of activity, and there is probably a provision allowing someone to sue an airline for this conduct, which may even list statutory damages allowing for or even requiring these high sums. As I said earlier, I'm too lazy to do the research on it, but I doubt that the article presents the full story.

[toast]

People that fly non-rev are commonly the first ones to be inconvenienced on any flight. They aren’t paying.

I fly non-rev a lot. It is understood if there aren’t enough meals, drinks, etcetra, I go without. There are a few instances under which I have been bumped from a flight that I would have gladly been assigned to the bathroom.

A little secret...You can actually hang out next to the back galley. You don’t have to sit in the bathroom. The flight attendant can go back to the jump seat when it is time to land.

[Political Junkie Too]

I can see an argument for humiliation for being forced to sit in an unsanitary toilet for hours on end.

While in there, I'd be hesitant to take any of my carry-on out, losing the simple pleasure of reading a book or eating a snack, let alone the loss of in-flight entertainment.

I'm not sure, either, about traveling on a "buddy pass." That might be a red herring argument. People cash in reward miles, travel on promotion vouchers, receive airline overbook vouchers, etc. How one accounts for the ticket should have no bearing on access to normal in-flight services.

Besides, the "buddy pass" is an employee benefit, so I'd expect that employees are encouraged to take advantage of benefits because "that's what makes < insert company name > a great place to work!" What's next, fire the person who gave Mr. Mutlu the "buddy pass" because of all the aggravation it caused?

-PJ

[VRWCmember]

I have a serious question for one of the resident lawyers.

It sounds like this guy did not purchase a ticket from Jet Blue but rather flew at no charge. If that’s the case and this actually went to court, would that have any effect on what he is entitled to get from Jet Blue?

He flew on a buddy pass, which on most airlines usually involves paying some kind of nominal service charge fee, but not anywhere near the cost of an airfare. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is that it would have ZERO effect on what he is "entitled" to receive from Jet Blue. An analogy would be if you redeemed a free ticket voucher to get tickets to a hockey playoff game, and midway through the first period the head of arena security came up and told you that one of the ushers was going to sit in your seat for the rest of the game; and by the way you can't stand in the aisle, and you can't stand at an entrance, and you can't stand in the special standing room only section because those people paid for standing room only seats, but there is a nice stall in one of the restrooms where you can see the game on a closed-circuit tv monitor mounted in the corner of the rest room. Even though you didn't pay for the hockey ticket, once you were able to redeem your voucher for a ticket for a seat at the hockey game, you have a reasonable expectation of the right to sit in that seat.

[Jagermonster]

The judge cannot look at a case where a man stood in a bathroom 3 hours and wants $2 million for it and just decide that the case is frivolous?

That's a frivolous case if I ever heard one.

The airline should offer him a free pass or a fruit basket or something. And a proper way for him to get even with them is to not buy any more tickets for their flights.

This case is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree with you that the case is ridiculous, and that Mr. Mutli is blowing this all out of proportion. However, the point is that ridiculous does not equal frivolous. This is a common misconception. Frivolity has a specific legal meaning that is much narrower than that bandied about in common parlance. As Wikipedia notes,

The typical definition [of frivolous] in United States law is very different from its colloquial or political meaning. United States courts usually define "frivolous litigation" as a legal claim or defense presented even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit.

In short, a frivolous lawsuit is one for which there is no supporting legal rationale. Attorneys can be sanctioned for filing such frivolous cases (See e.g. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11).

It does not appear here that there is no underlying legal rationale to this case. It arguably satisfies each element of negligence: The airline had a duty to appropriately provide for its passengers, the airline did not so provide, the actions of the airline caused the situation, and the plaintiff suffered as a result. The fact that the plaintiff puts an absurd price tag on his suffering does not enter into the question of frivolity.

Asking for too much in retribution does not mean that the plaintiff was not wronged, and it certainly does not mean that his legal recourse should be cut off. Reductio ad absurdum, this would call for the absolute dismissal with no recourse of any case where a plaintiff overestimated the amount of his damages, and would remove the big stick of punitive damages.

[RckyRaCoCo]

Takes on a whole new meaning....