How the United Passenger Suckered Us

But part of the phenomenon long precedes YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and social media dictating the news. It's the American cult of victimization

You’ve been snookered folks! By that poor elderly doctor who was involuntarily dragged from his seat, had his face smashed in, and was beaten unconscious by the evil airport security at the behest of United Airlines.

Because there’s no evidence any of that was true. It was in fact a premeditated temper tantrum gone viral, comprising one 69-year-old Vietnamese-American David Dao, a medical doctor who lost his license, planning a lawsuit from the moment United first politely asked him to give up his seat. He demanded to be dragged, did an excellent impersonation of Ned Beatty’s character in that horrific scene in Deliverance, and struck his lip on an armrest. From the many videos taken by numerous passengers, obviously from numerous angles, there’s no evidence of a beating, a “serious” concussion, or bodily damage beyond that lip.

The bottom line question to you in my last post was:
“can you point to any article anywhere supporting your simple property right reasoning? With an actual legal analysis (not just the conclusion because that’s the way things ought to be)?”

As of course you could not find one, you went off putting things in terms of Dao exercising some sort of remedy for contract breach using “physical force against United’s agents” and provided your own flawed analysis. Maybe try reading these:
http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535
http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/04/12/united-passenger-has-every-right-to-bring-legal-action/?slreturn=20170316202839

Dao did not use force “against” anyone. He simply tried to hold onto his rightful place on the airplane. No matter how you try to make this a simplistic contract/ownership case, you are totally ignorant of the law at play. No need to create hypotheticals that don’t apply. This was a common carrier - that brings with it a lot of issues. A common carrier holds itself out to the public, and can place certain terms on its services without discrimination. They did not tell everyone to get off - they picked four individuals who, were booked, paid, and seated passengers. I use those terms in particular to help you reflect on the CEO explaining their policy going forward to not use law enforcement officers “to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger - we can’t do that.”

Why did he say “can’t” instead of “won’t?” You’re a lawyer, you should know the distinction. They certainly have the physical capability to force people off - but Munoz’s lawyers (and outside counsel) likely took him to the woodshed after his initial comment trying to set the stage for a Rule 21 defense, which was killed with subsequent video showing Dao was not doing anything within the Rule 21 list. Legally they cannot take someone off the plane without a reason stipulated in their very lengthy and complete contract. They, through their own Conditions of Carriage, resulting from passengers rights lawsuits decades ago, have two situations we have already discussed. Rule 25 for pre-boarding negotiation and ultimately involuntary denial of boarding, and Rule 21 for removal from the aircraft of a passenger for specific violations not in play here.

He was individually boarded - Rule 25 was gone.

He didn’t violate Rule 21 - the airline had no right to tell him to get off.

There is no other option, no matter what alternate universe of contract law you are living in (which tries to find ways for people in regulated industries to ignore law and contract).

Time for you to familiarize yourself with the real world and how companies (particularly airlines subject to Federal laws and regulations) draft contracts and implement procedures to comply with their contracts - which in the case United failed and is now quickly changing their operations to comply.

In earlier diatribes you accused me of being anti-airline, now you are suggesting anyone not in agreement with your erroneous conclusions are emotional. I’m sure you’ve observed many that jumped to your result because of Dao being unlikeable for many reasons, and the assumption of many who travel and have not read the contract that there has to be fine print that justifies whatever the airline does and people are just too stupid too understand that. As I have pointed out elsewhere - supporters of United’s actions in this situation are adopting the liberal approach to life - sacrifice someone’s rights for the larger group. To hear the few passengers that whooped their approval when Dao was gone - since of course it was not them and they could now get on their way - was sickening.

I don’t have any more time to go through in fine detail your flawed analysis (A - oops, rule 27 is about refunds, not process for denying boarding, no use dealing with hypotheticals with so many issues. Assume you meant rule 25 - but again, by United’s own admission, he was boarded. Quit with the hypotheticals. No trespass - they let him on and no action on his part to require arrest. B. Hypothetical fails in common carrier situation. No right on United’s part after he boarded. Common carrier. Airline regulations....

Dao did not use physical force. The goon squad used unreasonable force.

Several posts ago I said we will have to agree to disagree, and I should have kept to that conclusion. At this point that’s the last I will say on this matter.

Dao did not use force “against” anyone. He simply tried to hold onto his rightful place on the airplane.

Dao resisted, using physical force, an order by the owner of the aircraft to vacate the craft. Even going limp and requiring himself to be physically dragged out is a form of using physical force. But it appears he did more than merely go limp.

Dao had no right under any principles of contract law to resort to any form of physical force to specifically enforce his ticket contract. Indeed he had no legal right to the specific performance of his ticket contract, period.

I've cited basic principles of American contract law in support of my position that you cannot dispute. You cannot dispute these because THEY ARE IN EVERY CASEBOOK AND HORNBOOK on contract law. I guess you did sleep through contracts law. If you are a lawyer. Are you even a lawyer?

So you haven't seen these basic principles of contract law applied to this situation described on a website or in some magazine article or on a cable tv show by a pop culture legal commentator (or even better, comments in a news article by the personal injury plaintiffs bar! LOL!), and therefore you disagree with these principles? What a joke. Newsweek???

Dao's OWN LAWYER in the comments I have seen him make has described his claim in terms of UNREASONABLE force by United's agents. (Correctly so, as this the strongest claim he has to substantial damages, as I have already pointed out.)

And then you hand waive around the idea that there may be some basis supporting your argument in the law of common carriers. Well point to something if you have it. (And I'll point out that carriage was NOT underway - the plane was parked at the gate, the door was open, and people were coming and going onto the plane at the time the incident occurred.)

And you parse some comment of the United CEO as if it were some kind of authority on contract law? You're just spouting nonsense.

As I have pointed out, United's strategy obviously is to deal with this primarily to protect its business reputation and relationship with its customer base. And that's fine. Therefore it is a mistake for you to parse the words of their CEO or other spokesmen as if they are providing analysis of contract law.

United may well change their contract terms and procedures following this incident. That doesn't mean their existing contract terms and procedures are illegal.

The reason I waded into this at all is to educate anyone reading this that if they are on an airplane sitting at a gate and the proper representatives of the airline order you to remove yourself YOU DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PHYSICALLY RESIST THEM even by just going limp in your seat and making security guards remove you. You need to remove yourself from the aircraft in compliance with their order and rely on your legal remedies.

And furthermore, for anyone reading this, anyone telling you otherwise is an idiot and a fool.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.