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

Skip to comments.

Attorney for United Airlines passenger Dao says there will 'probably' be a lawsuit
cnbc.com ^ | 4/13/17 | Natalia Wojcik

Posted on 04/13/2017 8:27:52 AM PDT by ColdOne

An attorney for Dr. David Dao, the passenger at the center of the United Airlines incident, said that there will likely be a lawsuit as a result of the incident.

"I think corporate America needs to understand that we all want to be treated in the same manner with the same respect and the same dignity that they would treat their own family members. If they do that, wouldn't it be great? So, will there be a lawsuit? Yeah, probably," attorney Thomas Demetrio said during a press conference on Thursday.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dao; lawsuit; ual; united
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-158 next last
To: Alberta's Child

I’m close to being a Million Mile flyer on United - I’ll hit it in another 6 weeks or so. I doubt that my flights will see any difference in available seats (typically there are none). And yes, I go through ORD a lot.


61 posted on 04/13/2017 9:44:03 AM PDT by Patriotic1 (Dic mihi solum facta, domina - Just the facts, ma'am)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

.
>> “ Dao violated the terms of the contract on his ticket.” <<

Better get new reading glasses!

They can prevent boarding, but once boarded, one can be requested to delay, but cannot be forced to.
.


62 posted on 04/13/2017 9:44:37 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
When an airline needs to move a pilot they have every right to remove you from your seat.

Not really, airlines must comply with their contract of carriage. In this case, the UAL employees were passengers not aircrew. They have the same rights as any other passenger -- but no special rights.

In this case, under no analysis did UAL comply with their contract of carriage. Accordingly, they breached the contract and violated Federal law.

Airlines are common carriers, as such they have special privileges, rights and duties that go beyond normal private enterprises.

63 posted on 04/13/2017 9:47:18 AM PDT by 13foxtrot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
And no, United will never say anything so stupid as to demand that Dao never fly on United again.

You're probably right. You can bet their computers are already configured so that he can never fly with them again, though.

64 posted on 04/13/2017 9:48:06 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

“I’ll bet the money will come right out of Munoz’s pay.”

The CEO had very little to do with this event, until he opened his mouth.
For that, cane him, bare ass, not too many strokes.(Remember his HA)
The caning officer to be of Chinese ancestry.
Prime time broadcast on all channels.

The fake cops, gate agent, whoever wrote this policy...
A few more whacks; late night pay for view.
Proceeds going to the Society for Brain Damaged Welders.


65 posted on 04/13/2017 9:49:19 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (Go Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

That attorney reminded me of the guy who played the Wizard of Oz. What a surreal press conference. He was going on and on about needing to change the culture of bullying, rudeness etc.


66 posted on 04/13/2017 9:50:01 AM PDT by pugmama (Ports Moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

.
You imagined that post right out of an orifice that sees no light!
.


67 posted on 04/13/2017 9:50:29 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 13foxtrot
In this case, the UAL employees were passengers not aircrew.

On its face this makes no sense. Why would UAL bump four paying passengers in favor of four non-paying passengers?

As I've speculated on this thread, United was almost certainly obligated to fly those four crew members even if they were better off keeping the paying customers happy.

I don't want to see mere speculation on this from "armchair experts," but I'd be curious to hear from people with a legal background and/or airline industry background who might be able to answer this question: What happens if an airline is faced with a situation where they have two competing "contracts" at work -- their obligations to their passengers and their obligations to their crews?

68 posted on 04/13/2017 9:51:32 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

ordinarily plaintiff would sue UAL and the airport police, joint and several.

then, both UAL and airport police would file preliminary motions to dismiss.

the question is if airport police used excessive violence. did plaintiff violently resist? if plaintiff did not violently resist, then airport police “escalated” the violence.

It is a fourth amendment, eighth amendment, and civil rights issue.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/excessive-force-and-police-brutality.html

i wonder if UAL would be bold enough to file a counterclaim against plaintiff under these circumstances.


69 posted on 04/13/2017 9:51:32 AM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
Right. In that case, the third-party claim by UAL against aviation security would be a cross-claim instead.

I'm sure UAL would file a counterclaim just to get Dao's insurance carrier involved as a potential source of money to pay a settlement.

70 posted on 04/13/2017 9:53:08 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

United did not beat the guy up.


71 posted on 04/13/2017 9:53:27 AM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Once this guy was informed by United that he would not be allowed to fly on their plane, he needed to vacate the plane. It’s not his plane. He was a trespasser at that point.

It'll boil down to the definition of "boarding".

They can deny boarding to deal with overbooking, but can only eject someone for other cause after then (drunk, sick, etc.)

Was he boarded or not when this happened?

72 posted on 04/13/2017 9:53:46 AM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: Bob434

.
United had no cause under contract to do anything but request volunteers to delay passage, once they had boarded the plane.

United’s options became greatly diminished once they allowed passengers to board.

Either the captain, or the chief steward made a very bad call when they made a false security call to the apt police. That was a crime (false report).

That is where it all shakes down.

United should fire either the captain, or the steward, or both, because they screwed up big on this one.


74 posted on 04/13/2017 10:00:36 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Yep, anytime a “man” is squealing the way he was, its for attention.

If you listened to Rush yesterday, he commented on multiple videos showing another angle to this story.


75 posted on 04/13/2017 10:00:37 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

My brother took in a nice pile of cash, tickets to anywhere in the US they flew, bonus miles and the next flight to Chicago.
On his return ticket he was quick to volunteer!

They gave him a voucher for US dollars.

Cost him an hour or two each way.


76 posted on 04/13/2017 10:00:49 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (Go Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

If you want to get technical about “boarding,” you can read the rules to say that the airline only has to ask for volunteers and offer compensation to people who have not yet boarded.

For people who have already boarded, United does not have to meet that responsibility, they can simply start canceling tickets if they are oversold.

But I think United was following the spirit of the rule when they extended the benefit of it to not only people who had not yet boarded, but also those who had boarded.

Once they ask for volunteers and offer compensation, they have met their burden. If after meeting their burden, there are too few seats they can cancel tickets.

And even if United didn’t properly follow the rules, this passenger had no right to physically possess the airframe.

When ordered to remove himself from their airplane, he needed to do that, and then later seek money damages from them for their not following the rules of the contract.


77 posted on 04/13/2017 10:01:40 AM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

.
You’re not understanding what went down.

United lost all options at the gate.

When they gave permission to board, all of the rights and powers transferred to the passengers.

When the crew called security and claimed that a passenger had misbehaved, they broke the law, and incurred deep liability. It was a false crime report.

That is it in a nutshell.
.


78 posted on 04/13/2017 10:05:54 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

.
You are grossly mistaken.
.


79 posted on 04/13/2017 10:07:31 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I’d like you to cite me the exact provisions under Federal law, under USDOT common carrier regulations, and United Airlines ticket policy to support that.


80 posted on 04/13/2017 10:10:11 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-158 next last

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.

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