Here’s a good link, though. It’s written by a law prof for a legal journal:
I've seen this and another legal argument and they boil down to the specifics of the contract and what the definitions of specific words mean. It will depend upon what the Judge decides they mean.
However, the United Personnel were acting under the belief that they had the legal right to remove Dr. Dao, and the police most certainly had the legal responsibility to remove Dr. Dao after he had been designated an unwelcome guest by the airline.
The police do not have to demand to see the contract, all they have to have is an agent of the Airlines telling them the man is an unwelcome guest, and then it becomes within their legal authority to remove him.
Whether or not United's agents had the legal right to remove Dr. Dao is a civil law matter, but so far as the police are concerned, the police had a legal right to remove him because they had a valid complainant.
I note that according to your article, 3 other people were removed from the flight without incident. It is only Dr. Dao that decided to throw a screaming fit and resist.
There is a good legal argument that Dao had a right to keep that seat, but I don't think he has a legal argument to resist the police in removing him once an agent of the airline designated him as an unwelcome guest.
He could have removed himself in a dignified fashion and thereafter sued the airline for breech of contract, but instead he decided to act like a fool, and as a result he got hurt.
I think the airline settled because the bad publicity was costing them more than the settlement would.
‘It is only Dr. Dao that decided to throw a screaming fit and resist.’
You’ve been corrected on this point yet you continue to make a demonstrably false claim. That’s called trolling. If you’re not paying attention to anything anyone says—or to their factual citations—then there’s no point in this discussion.
[Note: You said the video had been disabled in my prior link. The text was still there, and the person who recorded the inception of the incident says you are DEAD WRONG. Not that it will matter to you; nothing does.]
Btw, you were 100% wrong about the substance of the article written by the law prof, too.
Why does that not surprise me?
The police do not have to demand to see the contract, all they have to have is an agent of the Airlines telling them the man is an unwelcome guest, and then it becomes within their legal authority to remove him.
There is even a question on whether or not they could even legally be on the plane.