Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: discostu
-- he turned it into a situation that needed security, at that point he moved from being a bumped passenger deserving compensation to a risk passenger that needed to be removed for the safe operating of the plane. --

If Dao asks for enough in the way of damages, and tries to attach liability to UAL for his injuries, I would not be surprised at all to read that United argued in its legal briefs that Dao was a Rule 21 passenger. But as long as he is "reasonable," I figure United will go along with him being entitled to damages, be they Rule 25 or plain old "breach of contract" damages.

124 posted on 04/18/2017 2:22:34 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

I think they’ll wind up paying him a lot just to make him STFU. They’re not going to worry about rules, other than the gag order in their settlement agreement. There’s no margin in going to court, takes too long, generates too much bad PR. Heck given how corporate life is it’ll probably be a different CEO by the time it hit court and the new CEO sure won’t want that trouble, pay him, make sure there’s timed payments so he’s insensitive to keep it zipped, and move on.


128 posted on 04/18/2017 2:27:23 PM PDT by discostu (Stand up and be counted, for what you are about to receive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson