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.”
As I wrote earlier, we do not know the extenuating circumstances as to why four UAL employees appear to have arrived at the gate perhaps after all the passengers had been boarded.
“He should pay United for causing the mess.”
You still here mulligan beating that drum? Dao will be able to retire nicely on $25 million or so.
I haven't tracked this in any detail, but even right here on FreeRepublic it seems that the posters who are most hostile to Dr. Dao all seem to be frequent fliers. I'm sure there's a good reason for it.
My bet is a minimum of $10mm. I heard that before boarding, when they were offering $800, someone said, “I’ll give you my seat for $1600.” Everyone laughed. Those seats selling at less than $6000 should have looked good to United versus this hot mess!
Law enforcement has routinely prosecuted people for the outcomes of a chain of events...like if you steal an ambulance and then someone dies because that ambulance wasn’t available you get charged with manslaughter or something.
That means that United is at least in part responsible for the actions of the Chicago cops because United initiated the chain of events and they did so wrongfully.
Like if I call a SWAT team to your house under false pretenses then I’m responsible for their actions.
Same thing.
The reason you are wrong about this is that United is guilty of breaching the law. Its not just optics. United cannot afford to let this play out in court. My guess is they offer $3-$5 million. Its a cheap way out.
A lot of money. He deserves it. Half of it should come from the airport “cops” who beat him to a pulp. And they need to be in jail.
“this was the legal dilemma United faced with the four crew members destined for Louisville.”
Whenever I have a legal dilemma I grab the nearest Vietnamese guy, shove $800.00 in his face and say “solve my problem or I’ll beat you up.”
Works like a charm.
Lawyers get 1/3 to 40%.
Insurance company will provide some of the legal defense costs.
United and insurance company will want it to go away sooner rather than later, and for it to be out of the daily news cycle.
United might be self-insured for small claims, then a layer of insurance by insurance company/companies, etc.
Most likely the amount of settlement will not be disclosed, by agreement.
But I’m sure you can see that this stopped being about the legal rights of passenger vs. airline policy the instant the video first hit social media. This is the world we live in today where everyone has a camera and the internet. Expensive equipment and a satellite truck are no longer needed, virtually anyone can be an instant national news reporter with what they carry in their pocket or purse.
So United will only argue the legalisms at the peril of it’s own stock price and market value. This has become one of the biggest PR nightmares of the last decade at least, on par with the time the auto industry execs flew private jets to DC to beg for bailouts, or the Bridgestone tire fiascon.
In every case it matters as much how quickly the company responds as what they say, and United punted on both. It’s kinda hard to imagine them handling this any worse, and it’s going to cost them big-league money. Better sooner than later.
According to United’s own Terms of Service, Dao had a legal right to that seat, and United had no legal basis to eject him. Munoz has admitted as much.
Dao didn’t “fight” with anyone. The three security persons who injured him were the sole aggressors.
Whatever he gets it’s going to be a s-load and I wish it happened to me.
You mean the 3 Chicago Dept of Aviation security officers whose actions were repudiated by the agency itself and who are now all on leave? Good luck with that!
“Agree, $5M minimum.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, I’m thinkin’ in the 5 to 10 mill $ range.
Nice and round.
And the flight crew didn’t make their flight.
I would award the following:
From United, maximum allowable DOT regulated compensation for involuntary bump.
From the security organization, 3x the cost of his injuries plus 3x the cost of his normal salary for lost work.
MINUS
The cost of the extra delay (cost to operate the aircraft x hours of delay) and the compensation already given to the Doctor and the additional compensation United has already paid to the other passengers.
Methinks the Dr would end up owing
I have taught my children not to resist arrest. How many high profile incidents are a result of resisting arrest? Should we now tell them arrest is an economic opportunity?
“The United Airlines and the City of Chicago would both be named as defendants in the suit.”
I doubt that very much. The causes of action are very different. There will be two separate trials and Dao will get big bucks from each of them irrespective of the other. And quite frankly, I don’t know who I want to pony up more. In terms of physical injuries, the City of Chicago has a bigger issue. And besides, It’s Chicago and anything that can take money from Rahm Emmanuel is a good thing.
If a lawsuit is filed against United but the City of Chicago is not included, then United will simply file a third-party claim against the City of Chicago. The city will then effectively be a co-defendant even if the plaintiff didn't name them directly.
You might want to do some research on a common-law legal principle known as the "Entire Controversy Doctrine," which basically requires all aspects of a single cause of action to be litigated together in one legal proceeding.
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.