Posted on 04/14/2017 3:11:24 PM PDT by Presbyterian Reporter
The passenger who was forcibly removed from a United Airlines flight by aviation security officials Sunday garnered much public sympathy in the days since video emerged of him being dragged, bloody and screaming, down the aisle of a plane. David Dao, 69, retained a lawyer and filed a petition with an Illinois court to get all evidence related to the incident preserved.
While a lawsuit wasn't filed, Dao’s lawyer confirmed in a press conference Thursday there would likely be one, which begs the question: In the wake of such a high-profile, controversial incident, how much will Dao get?
“Dr. Dao will likely get millions here,” James Goodnow, an attorney with the Lamber-Goodnow Injury Law Team at Fennemore Craig, who is licensed in Chicago, told International Business Times in an interview Thursday. “The only question is how many zeros will follow the first number.”
Dao has a number of claims against both the city of Chicago and United. First and foremost, he has an assault and battery case.
“This is going to be a slam dunk, a no-brainer, an easy win,” Goodnow told IBT. “It’s documented on multiple cell phones. There’s no question.
Other claims will likely include breach of contract, false imprisonment, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“That’s just a big fancy way of saying that the officers involved, and/or United Airlines, intentionally engaged in outrageous conduct that could be expected to have an emotional impact on Dr. Dao,” said Goodnow. “I think most people would consider this conduct outrageous and I think there’s little question Dao has suffered emotionally.”
There is no specific monetary cap in Chicago on what a plaintiff can get. Dao would likely collect on an array of damages including medical bills, lost wages and general damages, which include those things that can’t be quantified, like emotional distress and pain and suffering. Illinois is one of the most restrictive places in the country when it comes to punitive damages, which refer to damages awarded to punish wrongdoers and deter future wrong conduct, so lawyers would have to look elsewhere for a larger payday.
“The real money is going to come in the area of emotional distress damages — the pain and suffering. We call those general damages,” said Goodnow. “That’s where you can juice this up from a monetary perspective.”
In a typical personal injury case, Goodnow explained, a general rule of thumb is that plaintiffs are rewarded three to four times his or her medical bills. In a case where a client’s past and future medical bills are estimated to be about $100,000, the payout would likely be somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000. Not so for Dao, namely because the case will almost certainly never make it to court.
“What you will see here is a settlement value that will blow away anything Dr. Dao will ever recover in court,” said Goodnow.
Because of the nature of the case and the intense public scrutiny, United will likely be motivated to aim for a settlement, which will garner a larger payout for Dao than a trial would. The company has already become the subject of numerous boycotts, internet mocking and a plunging stock price and can’t afford to be at the center of yet another controversy.
“Look at the attention this case has received in just a few days,” said Goodnow. “Imagine what would happen if you have a public trial and every reporter is covering it. Every day will be another paper cut for United.”
The mistakes made by United after the incident will presumably benefit Dao. At least, from a monetary standpoint.
Instead of apologizing to Dao, the airline said it was sorry for having to “re-accommodate” passengers in their first statement. They were the subject of swift backlash by people who took issue with the phrasing. In a different memo to employees, which was obtained by the media, CEO Oscar Munoz appeared to blame Dao for being “disruptive and belligerent” and leaving the crew “no choice” but to call aviation security to forcibly remove him, though video recorded right before the incident suggested otherwise.
“All of these missteps are going to enter into the equation when United is deciding how much to pay here,” said Goodnow. “If United insults Dr. Dao and his legal team with a 'lowball' offer, they risk an ever greater backlash. If that information were to leak out, it would be so damaging if it looks like, in the face of this, United is trying to get out on the cheap.”
Munoz issued yet another statement from the company Tuesday in which he took “full responsibility” and pledged to make the situation right.
“I don’t think United’s legal team is going to try and 'lowball' Dr. Dao here,” said Goodnow. “I think they’re going to come in with the biggest number they can to get this put to bed as soon as possible.”
It would be interesting to see if it can be established that United called Chicago Airport Police instead of the Feds or the Chicago Police knowing that with the airport police they would get a removal and that with the Feds or Chicago police they would decide that seating is a civil dispute and they need to negotiate with each other.
A bit conspiratorial, but it’s very rare for police to beat the elderly just for being stubborn, it’s bad for their careers. And it’s Chicago. And then you get past United not knowing that a passenger could likely be injured.
Don’t worry about the teeth. Implants are easy nowdays.
The pilot did not order Dao off the plane. You must disabuse yourself of that idea. The United Pilots Ass issued a statement stressing that no pilot had anything to do with Dao’s disposition or treatment.
Look, I’m talking to myself evidently, but one more time. United’s ToS said they couldn’t unseat Dao at that point. Direct your arguments to United, and upbraid them for giving passengers a few meagre rights. I didn’t do that; United did. They’re the ones you need to address.
“WHY did they pick someone to remove who was traveling with FAMILY ? IT MAKES NO SENSE.”
In Asian cultures women do not take their husbands last name.
My wife and I have been married 30 years and her last name is still Cheng.
I’ll give united the possibility of a pass on this one, they might not have known he was traveling with his wife and daughter
I read he had a concussion, and a broken nose, along with losing teeth. I’ve also read that he was unconscious, and they dumped him on the floor (ground) without any supervision. He woke up alone, and went back on the plane. He appeared dazed, and confused, saying he wanted to go home.
Be nice if this little incident brings them down. Let United Airlines go the way of Pan Am. Some better, more customer-oriented company can snatch up their assets. Their stewardesses can go find employment making phone calls at some collection agency. The airport rent-a-cops can go back to being bouncers at the strip clubs.
Instead of talking to yourself, please carefully read what I wrote.
I’m willing to concede that United’s ToS were breached for the purpose of argument.
What I am telling you is that the ONLY legal remedy Dao has is to sue for money damages.
He does not have the right to physically stay on United’s airplane if United orders him off, EVEN if United is breaching the terms of his ticket.
Frequent fliers not only expect to be treated like cattle, they seem to demand it.
The rent-a-thugs don’t have to be UAL employees. The thugs didn’t board the plane on their own. UAL agents called them to remove the passenger. UAL set the stage. They are guilty.
Your $ may. Be closer the. Me. Thanks
You do taxes? Hmm..$35 an hour is cheaper than H&R block which charge like $100 last time I checked. Thanks, I let him know.
The Nader case is quite interesting in that regard. See NADER v. ALLEGHENY AIRLINES, INC, 626 F.2d 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1980), which, I think, closes out a long series of Nader v. Allegheny beginning with his being bumped from Allegheny flight 864, scheduled to depart from Washington, D.C. for Hartford at 10:15 A.M. on April 28, 1972. Yep, eight years later, the suits wind down.
On remand [after the case wound it way through SCOTUS] the District Court found that Allegheny violated section 404(b) of the Act, 49 U.S.C. S: 1374(b), by its failure to board Nader in accordance with its own priority boarding rules. For this the court awarded him $10.00 in compensatory damages. The court also found that Allegheny's failure to notify Nader of the chance that he would not be seated constituted fraudulent misrepresentation, and that "defendant Allegheny wantonly implemented its policy of nondisclosure and misrepresentation in conscious, deliberate, and callous disregard of the effect of its policy on its passengers, including plaintiff Nader." The court awarded Nader $15,000 in punitive damages "to punish defendant Allegheny for its willful and wanton policy of nondisclosure and misrepresentation and . . . to deter defendant from engaging in such practices in the future." Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 445 F.Supp. 168, 178, 179 (D.D.C. 1978). Compensatory damages on the claim were assessed at $10.00.Nader v. Allegheny Airlines Inc., 626 F2d 1031On this appeal Allegheny challenges only the award of compensatory and punitive damages on the claim based upon fraudulent misrepresentation. ...
The judgment for both compensatory and punitive damages is
Reversed.
Yep, good example.
Another one I came up with:
Let’s take the case of an Uber driver. Dao calls and puts in an order to pick him up at LaGuardia and drive him to Staten Island.
The driver picks Dao up but halfway to getting to the destination, the driver gets a phone call. It is either (1) a medical emergency by the driver’s wife and he must immediately drive home or there is great risk or (2) a buddy of the driver calls and says he got Yankees-Red Sox tix but you gotta get here now, or I’m giving your ticket to Joey. It doesn’t matter which one it is.
So the driver immediately stops the car halfway there, and tells Dao to get out.
Does Dao have to get out? Or does he have the right to fight with the driver and resist being removed from the car? Does he have some sort of property right in the back seat of the driver’s car, and can prevent being evicted from the car, solely because the driver didn’t finish driving him to his destination?
Of course Dao has to get out. It’s not his car. He can sue for damages, he can file a complaint with consumer affairs, he can organize a picket protest of Uber’s office. He can do a lot of things, but one thing he cannot do is fight with the car owner and refuse to leave the back seat of the car.
Dao was calmly explaining that he was a dr who had to be at work at 8 the next morning. Meanwhile, another couple had offered to deplane if United sweetened their offer. Why shouldn’t Dao wait to see if United couldn’t find a more willing ‘volunteer’?
Not that easy. My son had the metal implants put in about two months ago, and is still waiting for his permanent dentures. They told him a minimum of three months from the time of the implant surgery, but it could take up to 6 months. They have to make sure that the implants integrate themselves with the jaw bone. He can't wear the temporary dentures they gave him. They don't fit properly, make him drool, and gag, and he has an overbite with them. The dentist's office said there's nothing they can do about it, so he's living with metal posts on the top, and is limited to what he can eat.
That’s the charge for me to do MY taxes.
Public school graduate.
More false news from the luegenpresse.
The stock took a sharp dip but has recovered to almost exactly where it was a week ago.
“$25 million in an undisclosed settlement with discovery suppressed.
And then they go after the City of Chicago.”
Correct-A-Mundo.
By saying you can drag me off if you want to does not hurt, it shows they had s clear choice, and it was solely their decision.
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.