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.”
Be my guest.
United’s ToS says they once a passenger is boarded, they can be deplaned for disruptive behavior. Dao wasn’t being disruptive. Take it up with United.
There will be at least two settlements.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if there’s another suit against the airplane manufacturer.
You'd think a lawyer would know the difference between a number and a digit.
It'll be the first case in history where calling the cops, whatever label you want to pin on them, results in liability to the caller, for a beat down administered by the cops.
‘It won’t be much’
I bet you’ll be surprised.
No. This is United's mess. They own and they'll pay for it. The Aviation Security Unit will share some of the blame, but United is responsible for this mess.
“I’m sure that introducing Dr Doa’s face to the armrest was a legitimate police tactic.”
No, no, no. Clear evidence of a design flaw. The suit against Boeing (or whoever) will be coming right after the city settles, which will be right after United settles.
Some Freepers would have you believe so.
I don’t care if I’m in the minority or not.
The correctness of an argument does not depend on the number of people agreeing or disagreeing with it.
Yep, we’re never going to know. Seems like we never get to find out in the juicy ones.
While I understand everybody taking up the rights of UAL,
I have had it with the thugs that run the airlines and the airports.
You do not have the expectation of being beaten to a pulp with contract in hand.
UAL is the parent contractor and will pay. Any pilot could have bumped that rate to 1500 and the issue is over.
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.
****
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.
Totally wrong. Once a carrier is transporting someone to a destination, they have a legal and fiduciary duty to act with proper care to get the passenger to his or her destination. If you’re not misbehaving, a cab can’t just dump you in the middle of nowhere because the cabbie decides he wants to do something else. That’s like saying the captain of on ocean liner has the right to throw passengers overboard and they can’t object. Captains of ferries and passenger ships go to prison for abandoning their passengers or not taking steps to protect them in line with their legal duty of care.
“<<< Most likely the amount of settlement will not be disclosed, by agreement. >>>
Unless the City of Chicago is a defendant. That’s taxpayers money.”
Government entities often settle for undisclosed amount, like it or not.
There is no law that forces our cities, districts, agencies, to disclose very much if they don’t want to.
And their position might be it is best that way, lest they become more costly if widely known.
Mr. Dao should get as much as he can.
Millions, if not tens of millions.
Regardless of Mr. Dao’s past, current and future flyers will benefit from
Mr. Dao’s pain and suffering.
I don’t think we are ever going to see another flyer removed by force
because of overbooking.
Carrots, not sticks will provide the incentive.
There is an interessting parallel there, to the Nader case and the use of overbooking all the way back in the 1970's. Eventually, what happened what fine print on the ticket that says something to the effect of you (any ticket holder) can be bumped due to overbooking.
Just expand that to say that you can removed from your seat at any time, depending on passenger priority, and that failure to comply with a request to vacate the aircraft can be penalized by the airline.
You keep missing the point.
Yes, United can deplane a passenger for being disruptive and that WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE TICKET CONTRACT. They will not be in breach of that passenger’s ticket by doing so.
But here, I’m WILLING TO CONCEDE that United VIOLATED the terms of Dao’s ticket, for argument’s sake.
What I am telling you is Dao still has to get off the plane when ordered to do so by the airline. His only remedy is money damages for the violation of his ticket contract.
But since this is occurring aboard the aircraft and not at the gate where Airport Police may not have jurisdiction wouldn't you call the feds? And wouldn't the feds be available since this is O'Hare?
Second, what makes you think ANY police is going to litigate the case while the plane sites there? Between UAL and a passenger, UAL is calling the shots. If Dao wants his own cops there to take the other side, it's on him to call HIS police.
United chose the police that they would call, Dao did not.
I'd have to search and find the article, but LAPD has stated that they wouldn't get involved in a seating dispute between and passenger and the airline.
Nope...sorry...wrong...
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.