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]

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