United Airlines Dragged an Asian American Down Aisle

[frequency]

Did I not say it was RELATED ? Just in case you do not know the meaning of 'related', here it is...

belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.

associated with the specified item or process, especially causally.

The point that you missed -- and that I tried to point out -- is that YOU CANNOT HAVE AN IDLE AIRCRAFT AT THE GATE.

Go the airlines forum and call those captains, active and retired, who have faced similar situations racists and see what happens.


And you just want to make this case into one of racism for your own needs.


Thank you, sir.


You do not need to be a legal expert to know this: If the police is telling you to do something, if you refuse, you just broke the law.

It does not matter if the reason was wrong on why the police was called. If the police officer tells you to leave the room or the aircraft, if you do not comply, you just broke the law and the officer is authorized to remove you by force if necessary.

Every country have this law and understanding. It was not UA personnel who manhandled him. It was the police. All Dao had to do was obey the police.

If this was a Chinese airline, Chinese police, and an American was involved, everybody here would slam the American.

"If the police is telling you to do something, if you refuse, you just broke the law." - Only Gambit
If the Police asks you to jump off the bridge, you would do that too? You are strange. You sound like Laroyce Tankson, 31, who shot dead a guy smoking weed outside. You need yourself checked. If you are a military personnel, I would recommend you to resign.

“The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned,” Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride said. “That officer has been placed on leave effective today pending a thorough review of the situation.”
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/video-appears-to-show-passenger-being-removed-from-united-flight/

I totally disagree with your statement. Dr. Dao does nothing wrong here. The Police or Security officer is not entitled to man-handled this man for no reason. One officer broke the rule for acting out without following the protocol. In your mind, you think a "military personnel" or a "Police Officer" can do anything and get away with it. The Airlines did not fully follow its policy to eject the man in-voluntarily. Thus, UA broke its own rule by mismanaging the situation.

---------------------------------------------------------
The good news is someone is looking into the problem of Airlines overbooking.

"New Jersey Governor Chris Christie denounced United Airlines as 'awful' on Wednesday and demanded the Trump administration step in and prevent the aviation industry from overbooking flights following the forced removal of a bloodied passenger on Sunday.

Christie was reacting to the national backlash that erupted against United after one of its passengers was filmed being violently dragged off a plane just before takeoff to make room for the airline's crew members even though he paid for a ticket.

After the social media uproar ignited widespread calls for a boycott, United CEO Oscar Munoz issued an apology and promised to investigate the incident.

The New Jersey governor told Fox & Friends on Wednesday that the incident was the result of a problematic culture at United."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tie-blasts-United-evicted-passenger-flap.html

 

[UKBengali]

My wife is an Human Right Lawyer, and ex Flight Attendant from Scandinavian Air Service

How was a flight-attendant able to become a lawyer?

I would not expect any flight-attendant to have anywhere near the IQ required to be any good at
practising law.

 

[Dungeness]

Funny, some people here are defending UA policy as if they are sacred laws that would never be wrong.

If founding fathers did not break the "Laws", there would not have been a country called USA; if the black lady from Alabama "followed" the laws in 1955, these proud "Americans" would still have been “colored people”. Don't let your slave mentality lead you to the wrong side of history.

 

[shadows888]

As well as being a brown-noser, jhungary has a reputation of being a grotesque liar. In addition to working on semi-conductors, he apparently also designs jet engines and phased array radars. For the purposes of this thread, his wife is allegedly both a flight attendant and a doctor of law, the two careers that appear to give one the most authority for commenting on this news item.

jhungary should take heed of the cautionary tale of Nihonjin. Before his fall, he was one of the most prolific and authoritative posters, being supposedly the only regular Japanese poster on pdf, as well as someone who appeared to have a wide variety of career paths and could speak dozens of languages. But even that reputation wasn't able to save him from being banned once his autobiographical lies were exposed

alt-righters have a tendency to be pathological liars. if you go to the_Donald, there's a bunch of dudes pretending to be "black" or "liberal" who finally "saw the light" and became "woke". newsflash, it's not very convincing.

 

[jhungary]

How was a flight-attendant able to become a lawyer?

I would not expect any flight-attendant to have anywhere near the IQ required to be any good at
practising law.

She went to uni to study law and work as a flight attendant to support herself. You want to see her diploma?

How did people like you ask stupid question like this?

 

[Mamluk]

She went to uni to study law and work as a flight attendant to support herself. You want to see her diploma?

A university student working as flight attendant to support herself? That doesn't really work, does it? Can she get back in time for her classes?

 

[jhungary]

You really need to re-read Rule 21 and watch the video again. It has nothing to do with what you just said. This has nothing to do with the Captain. He didn't own United Airlines. UA Carriage Policy is above the Captain. The Captain is nothing special here. I don't know why you have to emphasized on the Captain so much. You make it sounds like the Captain is the MAN of the house. You reminded of a Security Officer who just graduated from training and thinking he/she is above the law. You only know one side of the story because it favors you. In court, that is not how it works. There's a balance and all requires evidence. I would like to see an Officer man-handled a Lawyer like that. UA Carriage Policy can break their own contract in which case, they did.

Dr. Dao did not break any contract and law. He simply refused to leave the air plane because of UA's overbooking problem. Also read Rule 25. That's where it is applicable, not what you said earlier. Did UA confirmed with Dr. Dao about his rights? He said he is a Doctor. Did they asked about his qualification and disabilities? No. I didn't think so. UA CEO and employees are behaving like dogs. I want to see that Airport security gets severe punishment.

"

1. Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship."

The Captain is the commander of that flight, he have the ABSOLUTE right on a given flight.

In a flight, it's the CAPTAIN's DECISION that have power over Company Policy.

You don't know this because you never worked in front line aviation industry. Just to show you a simple example. If a flight got delay by weather, the original airport is closed, and IT WOULD BE THE CAPTAIN DECISION not the AIRLINE DECISION to fly to a alternative that the captain think it's the best option. Even tho that decision would bring a disruption to Airline Operation. (You have to make connection flight, accommodation, compensation) which normally lies in Airline management.

Dao broke the rule AND THE LAW by refusing to follow the Captain and the Flight Crew order to disembark from the aircraft. At that point, he is legally be able to remove from the aircraft with due safety concern.

In court, this is how it work.

The United attorney will argue Mr Dao was asked to leave the plane by the captain, he did not leave the plane after the captain instruct him to do so, at that time Dao has broken US Code 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants, by refusing to follow the Captain (flight crew) order to disembark from the aircraft. His refusal to disembark after instructed by a flight crew member, then it was legally to remove him by both US code 49 and Rule 21 of the Contract of Carriage. Thus the subsequent arrest is on point.

The overbooking is BS, the flight did not overbook, and also, it does not matter because had he left at the point when he was asked by the captain, he could have qualified for a compensation as per claused, but when he refused, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, he has BROKEN A FEDERAL LAW. The captain is within his right as a flight officer and within the company guideline to call the police to arrest Mr Dao.

Just because you are treated unfairly, it does not give you the right to break the law. He can disembark the airplane, and then go up to the UA counter and complaint or even he can go to FAA and complaint about company and captain decision, he chose NOT TO do that, instead, he choose to break the law.

Ask any lawyer in the US, they will tell you that Dao is lucky he was not charged with that or UA did not press ahead with the charge at this stage. If UA decided to fight this and not give up due to bad publicity, UA will WIN a court case over this.

A university student working as flight attendant to support herself? That doesn't really work, does it? Can she get back in time for her classes?

Do you know domestic flight RUN ON SCHEDULE like a bus?

In fact, flight attendant is very good for uni student because you work 1 days and you have 2 off, and the roster is flexible. You work only when you don't have to go to school, and you go to college like 2 to 3 days a week. Which give you 4 days to work.

And if you don't want to work? Just tell them and you don't need to, you don't need doctor certificate. and so on.

Unfortunately, the law protect the corporations instead of the consumer. In the past, the plane can keep the passengers on the plane for 8-10 hours or more without reprieve. That is not allowed any longer. The law need to reflect that customers has the rights to those seats once they pay for it. And if the customers are willing to give up their seatsfor peanuts, that is fine. If not, keep on increase the compensation until enough customers are willing to give up. That would be the fair solution. Hopefully, this incident could change the law. In America, it sometime take an incident like this to change the law.

You may change the law, you may not, the question is this, as I said, America is actually better compensate then the rest of the world. (It's true when EU only offer 650 Euro (Around $900 USD) max for all cancellation and Australia and New Zealand offer nothing. The point is this, this is not an individual incident, it happened quite a lot worldwide. The question, will this particular incident can really change the view and the law to the extend it would focus more on consumer right?

I would say if Dao was not breaking the law HIMSELF, this incident would have been more persuasive than if he has just got off and make a fuzz about it at the counter. But then you need to ask yourself, if he did actually leave the plane, and make a fuzz at the counter, would that be capturing the attention of the media?

So, it goes back to the main question, what you need to do to change this, not just in the US, but worldwide? The sad truth is, in the aviation world, unless somebody dies, they won't change a damn thing. Sometime even if somebody dies, they still won't change a damn thing.

 

[faithfulguy]

The Captain is the commander of that flight, he have the ABSOLUTE right on a given flight.

In a flight, it's the CAPTAIN's DECISION that have power over Company Policy.

You don't know this because you never worked in front line aviation industry. Just to show you a simple example. If a flight got delay by weather, the original airport is closed, and IT WOULD BE THE CAPTAIN DECISION not the AIRLINE DECISION to fly to a alternative that the captain think it's the best option. Even tho that decision would bring a disruption to Airline Operation. (You have to make connection flight, accommodation, compensation) which normally lies in Airline management.

Dao broke the rule AND THE LAW by refusing to follow the Captain and the Flight Crew order to disembark from the aircraft. At that point, he is legally be able to remove from the aircraft with due safety concern.

In court, this is how it work.

The United attorney will argue Mr Dao was asked to leave the plane by the captain, he did not leave the plane after the captain instruct him to do so, at that time Dao has broken US Code 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants, by refusing to follow the Captain (flight crew) order to disembark from the aircraft. His refusal to disembark after instructed by a flight crew member, then it was legally to remove him by both US code 49 and Rule 21 of the Contract of Carriage. Thus the subsequent arrest is on point.

The overbooking is BS, the flight did not overbook, and also, it does not matter because had he left at the point when he was asked by the captain, he could have qualified for a compensation as per claused, but when he refused, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, he has BROKEN A FEDERAL LAW. The captain is within his right as a flight officer and within the company guideline to call the police to arrest Mr Dao.

Just because you are treated unfairly, it does not give you the right to break the law. He can disembark the airplane, and then go up to the UA counter and complaint or even he can go to FAA and complaint about company and captain decision, he chose NOT TO do that, instead, he choose to break the law.

Ask any lawyer in the US, they will tell you that Dao is lucky he was not charged with that or UA did not press ahead with the charge at this stage. If UA decided to fight this and not give up due to bad publicity, UA will WIN a court case over this.



Do you know domestic flight RUN ON SCHEDULE like a bus?

In fact, flight attendant is very good for uni student because you work 1 days and you have 2 off, and the roster is flexible. You work only when you don't have to go to school, and you go to college like 2 to 3 days a week. Which give you 4 days to work.



You may change the law, you may not, the question is this, as I said, America is actually better compensate then the rest of the world. (It's true when EU only offer 650 Euro (Around $900 USD) max for all cancellation and Australia and New Zealand offer nothing. The point is this, this is not an individual incident, it happened quite a lot worldwide. The question, will this particular incident can really change the view and the law to the extend it would focus more on consumer right?

I would say if Dao was not breaking the law HIMSELF, this incident would have been more persuasive than if he has just got off and make a fuzz about it at the counter. But then you need to ask yourself, if he did actually leave the plane, and make a fuzz at the counter, would that be capturing the attention of the media?

So, it goes back to the main question, what you need to do to change this, not just in the US, but worldwide? The sad truth is, in the aviation world, unless somebody dies, they won't change a damn thing. Sometime even if somebody dies, they still won't change a damn thing.

Just like they changed the law to cut down the time the airline can keep passenger on the plane for a limited duration, which was passed in the last few years, this incident could further reform the law. Especially that major news network still treat this as a headline news. I can see the momentum gathering. The rights of the passengers should be expanded as passengers should not be treated as cattles.

 

[jhungary]

Just like they changed the law to cut down the time the airline can keep passenger on the plane for a limited duration, which was passed in the last few years, this incident could further reform the law. Especially that major news network still treat this as a headline news. I can see the momentum gathering. The rights of the passengers should be expanded as passengers should not be treated as cattles.

Well, all I can say is, you should rad the fine print of a contract before you deal with plane ticket.

Some airline do not bump people at all, but then they tend to be more expensive (remember that was UA Express not UA) and they do not offer refund for the ticket, some Airline like Delta would actually try to negotiate a term which will make you want to surrender your seat (They paid $11,000 for a family of 3 just last week before the Dao Incident to ask the 3 to give up their seat.) But you probably need to avoid the rest, Qantas will give you shit beside a meal voucher and a ticket to your next flight, Virgin will give you $50 and a meal voucher for your compensation.

The problem is that, this is a worldwide practices, not just FAA, and in term of the quality of compensation, FAA actually being quite generous, would you think 1 headline (which is the pax is actually at fault) would change to that? I don't honestly think so, 1 or 2 weeks down the road, people will ask "Dao who?"

 

[xunzi]

This is incredible. The flight attendant took orders from the captain.

basic research is beyond your capability...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/10/news/united-overbooking-policy/

The four UA employees were actually FLIGHT CREW. They were needed in order to work another aircraft in an associated airline. This is not a case where the captain wanted to give favorable treatment to his friends and/or family. These four people were actually critical to the NORMAL operation of an associated airline.

Whether UA is wrong or not in trying to get these four flight crew members on board is for a different discussion, but the indisputable fact here is that based upon these needs, the captain felt these four flight crew members have higher priority than four passengers, hence his order is LAWFUL.

Which part of LAWFUL is too difficult for you to understand ?


I cannot tell if the guy is ignorant of the concept 'chain of command' or he is being deliberately obtuse.

You don't get it, do you? If we are totally strictly on law basis rights, then everything has to be spell out in written so that both parties understand. In court, the judge will ask whether the captain or his flight crew spell out that rights in the contract so that the customer understand. If he refused, then he is at fault. But that legal notice and right need to be said to him so he knows. It's the same thing when you are arrest, the cop will spell out your legal right to remain silence or when a cop goes to someone house to search, they need a written warrant spelling out to the house owner.

Indeed.



Dude, FLIGHT ATTENTANT IS PART OF THE FLIGHT CREW.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew

The pilot will not come out and ask you to leave, he/she has job to do in the cockpit before take off, it always the FA or Purser asking this question.



If people did not rob you, you think the police would come if you call the police?? I am imagining the call...

Police Operator : 911 What's your emergency?
Me : I have invite someone over and he IS NOT ROBBING ME.
Police Operator : Okay, Officer have been dispatched and they are with you shortly

LOL......

Really, I cannot stop laughing..

Like I kept saying, your stupid example is laughable. You add TWIST that FIT your fact, instead of the real fact outline in the example I provided to you. A better example would be this: you, the seller, sell something on Ebay, the buyer accepts. You then invite him to your house to accept that goods/services, but once he arrives, you tell him that you refuse to honor that good/service and tell him to leave immediately. The buyer refuses in principle that his payment deserved to be honor; otherwise you must provide him an immediate refund on the spot. You got angry, you call the house security. That house security at your discretion comes and drag that buyer out and in the process injured him. Thus at this point, you and the house security are in principle responsible for his damage.

Your mind is thinking very simplistic while my brain is operated on a different playing field, thinking much further ahead. I don't blame you. Not many people with deep thinking like me. LOL If this case goes to the supreme court (which we know won't for obvious reason) but let pretend this goes that far. At this point, the whole aviation industry will change forever and the whole unjustified aviation industry legal rights will be challenged by the consumer rights protection. I'm pretty sure what is legally now does not mean it is socially acceptable then and the court will no doubt changes that law to reflect a more playing field for the consumer rights. An example that is in similar but on a much big scale is the Rosa Park supreme case. Back then, the bus operated on the law to conduct segregation and Rosa Park did in fact breaks the law but that does not mean the supreme court will rule in favor of the bus because there is clearly an unjust balance law.

 

[jhungary]

Like I kept saying, your stupid example is laughable. You add TWIST that FIT your fact, instead of the real fact outline in the example I provided to you. A better example would be this: you, the seller, sell something on Ebay, the buyer accepts. You then invite him to your house to accept that goods/services, but once he arrives, you tell him that you refuse to honor that good/service and tell him to leave immediately. The buyer refuses in principle that his payment deserved to be honor; otherwise you must provide him an immediate refund on the spot. You got angry, you call the house security. That house security at your discretion comes and drag that buyer out and in the process injured him. Thus at this point, you and the house security are in principle responsible for his damage.

If this is the case, he can sue you for not honouring the agreement, he CANNOT Sue you for the home security beating the crap out of him.

Just because you are invited, that does not mean you have the duty of care by the owner, I am not saying the security service is not wrong either, the security service is wrong, but calling the security is an innocent act, there are no probability of chance that you WILL KNOW the Security Officer will beat the crap out of the person, whether or not he is at fault.

The story is different if YOU CALLED THE SECURITY AND ASK HIM TO BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THE BUYER, and scare him off, then you are WILLINGLY PARITCIPATE in a criminal activities, then you are culpable.

You failure to understand the basic term of "Innocent" action and "Culpable" Action, unless you can show, beyond reasonable doubt that UA are asking the local security officer to use violence with extreme prejudice, in US law Malice have to be proven before a crime CAN BE COMMITED. (In common law, it's called culpability)

It does not matter who you called, whether they are the police, security or your next door neighbour, you are not responsible for their action, unless that action is prior arranged by you.

If your case is correct, then the precedent will be set to EVERY case that the person owning that properties where the crime committed will be responsible for whatever crime it committed. Bank will be responsible for Bank robbery (as an open door policy, EVERYONE IS INVITED) and murder on a rental properties would have the owner take the blame. This case, an airline called security, are there any existential circumstance that lead to UA believe such action will result in a physical altercation that happened in their properties? Judging from the fact that this is not the first time UA called Authority to remove a passenger, there are no indication at that point (Prior to the actual incident) that the security will use excessive force to remove the passenger. That simply because it does not happened in the last 3449 times during 2016

Also, the contract was referred to when you buy the ticket online, you are require to READ the contract of carriage, it would not be the matter of the company if you clicked "I have read the term and condition"

Your mind is thinking very simplistic while my brain is operated on a different playing field, thinking much further ahead. I don't blame you. Not many people with deep thinking like me. LOL If this case goes to the supreme court (which we know won't for obvious reason) but let pretend this goes that far. At this point, the whole aviation industry will change forever and the whole unjustified aviation industry legal rights will be challenged by the consumer rights protection. I'm pretty sure what is legally now does not mean it is socially acceptable then and the court will no doubt changes that law to reflect a more playing field for the consumer rights. An example that is in similar but on a much big scale is the Rosa Park supreme case. Back then, the bus operated on the law to conduct segregation and Rosa Park did in fact breaks the law but that does not mean the supreme court will rule in favor of the bus because there is clearly an unjust balance law.

You are right, I don't have your thinking cause you are "Wishful" thinking, not anywhere deep or anything better than me, you are living in a dream world.

You are comparing this contractual dispute to civil right case. This is at best a consumer right thing, Dao was booted because of company policy regarding on duty crew and paid passenger, he was booted NOT BECAUSE OF HE IS ASIAN.

Of course you are free to play the race card here and there, this case will settle by UA because they don't want bad press, and once Dao is awarded multi-thousand sum for something he has done wrong to begin with, the case will dies and nobody is going to talk about it afterward.

 

[Dungeness]

On Board at your own risk:

 

[xunzi]

If this is the case, he can sue you for not honouring the agreement, he CANNOT Sue you for the home security beating the crap out of him.

Just because you are invited, that does not mean you have the duty of care by the owner, I am not saying the security service is not wrong either, the security service is wrong, but calling the security is an innocent act, there are no probability of chance that you WILL KNOW the Security Officer will beat the crap out of the person, whether or not he is at fault.

The story is different if YOU CALLED THE SECURITY AND ASK HIM TO BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THE BUYER, and scare him off, then you are WILLINGLY PARITCIPATE in a criminal activities, then you are culpable.

You failure to understand the basic term of "Innocent" action and "Culpable" Action, unless you can show, beyond reasonable doubt that UA are asking the local security officer to use violence with extreme prejudice, in US law Malice have to be proven before a crime CAN BE COMMITED. (In common law, it's called culpability)

It does not matter who you called, whether they are the police, security or your next door neighbour, you are not responsible for their action, unless that action is prior arranged by you.

If your case is correct, then the precedent will be set to EVERY case that the person owning that properties where the crime committed will be responsible for whatever crime it committed. Bank will be responsible for Bank robbery (as an open door policy, EVERYONE IS INVITED) and murder on a rental properties would have the owner take the blame. This case, an airline called security, are there any existential circumstance that lead to UA believe such action will result in a physical altercation that happened in their properties? Judging from the fact that this is not the first time UA called Authority to remove a passenger, there are no indication at that point (Prior to the actual incident) that the security will use excessive force to remove the passenger. That simply because it does not happened in the last 3449 times during 2016

Also, the contract was referred to when you buy the ticket online, you are require to READ the contract of carriage, it would not be the matter of the company if you clicked "I have read the term and condition"



You are right, I don't have your thinking cause you are "Wishful" thinking, not anywhere deep or anything better than me, you are living in a dream world.

You are comparing this contractual dispute to civil right case. This is at best a consumer right thing, Dao was booted because of company policy regarding on duty crew and paid passenger, he was booted NOT BECAUSE OF HE IS ASIAN.

Of course you are free to play the race card here and there, this case will settle by UA because they don't want bad press, and once Dao is awarded multi-thousand sum for something he has done wrong to begin with, the case will dies and nobody is going to talk about it afterward.

Again, another stupid example misinterpret by you. I keep telling you to stick with the fact. When you "invite" him to your house, there is a CLEAR intend so what happens at your house at that point become your responsible. Therefore you cannot cite a irrelevant example of someone comes WITHOUT your invitation and cause trouble, then in that case, homeowner has no responsibility. But the fact that you invite him, that is a DIRECT intend on your part.

Also it is clear you don't fully grasp the legality of this case. It is not a simple case of the aviation rights to deboard a pax at WILL because in the carrier contract, that rights reserve for only situation occurs at the GATE, meaning before he was board on the plane. When he was boarded on the plane and seated in his situation, at this point an aviation carrier contract does not apply. Basically once a customer is boarded on the plane and seated, there is a different set of rules. At this point, it becomes important that the captain comes out and instructs him to leave and on what ground. If he cited that he must leave for UA staff member, then that is illegal.

 

[jhungary]

Again, another stupid example misinterpret by you. I keep telling you to stick with the fact. When you "invite" him to your house, there is a CLEAR intend so what happens at your house at that point become your responsible. Therefore you cannot cite a irrelevant example of someone comes WITHOUT your invitation and cause trouble, then in that case, homeowner has no responsibility. But the fact that you invite him, that is a DIRECT intend on your part.

Feel like I am talking to a wall. I am handing it to my wife.

What you are referring to this case is about negligence, an oversight supposed to be offered by the defendant, but was overlooked as a result the plaintiff in this case, is injured.

Invitation does not meet the breach of duty of care. In Res ipsa loquitur (Speak for itself) doctrine, it stated that the duty of care is part of a 3 steps requirement

1. The event does not normally occur unless someone has acted negligently;
2. The evidence rules out the possibility that the actions of the plaintiff or a third party caused the injury; and
3. The type of negligence in question falls within the scope of the defendants duty to the plaintiff

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened.

In this case, the doctrine does not met because both requirement 1 and 2, evicting airline passenger are not normally occur and not normally ends with injury. The action is a result of a third party.

With an third party involved, the duty of care does not confer to the plaintiff as the owner in this case, is NOT exclusively controlling the environment, the only way the defendant can be called for is a association/accessories to a crime, but then, it require the plaintiff to proof the defendant with Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) coupled with Actus Rea (Guilty Acts) in which ,under common law, an act does not necessary make an action guilty, it have to couple with the fact that the defendant also had to have a guilty mind.

The Mens Rea cannot be proven in this case, as the gesture of calling the authority, the act in itself is not a guilty action committed with a guilty mind, on the contrary, it's a common action, an action you would have expected in a general circumstance, which would happen to a normal person whom process normal intelligence. That related to when you are having a disturbance, you contact the authority.

Had the airline contacted anyone beside the authority, an act of guilty mind cannot be disproven beyond their reasonable doubt. The case could have a point, but calling authority when you are in a conflict situation is a common mind, it cannot be and action borne out of a guilty mind.

Also it is clear you don't fully grasp the legality of this case. It is not a simple case of the aviation rights to deboard a pax at WILL because in the carrier contract, that rights reserve for only situation occurs at the GATE, meaning before he was board on the plane. When he was boarded on the plane and seated in his situation, at this point an aviation carrier contract does not apply. Basically once a customer is boarded on the plane and seated, there is a different set of rules. At this point, it becomes important that the captain comes out and instructs him to leave and on what ground. If he cited that he must leave for UA staff member, then that is illegal.

Wrong. At rule 21 of UA Contract of Carriage UA expressly reserve the right to REMOVE ANY PASSGENER FROM THE PLANE if they broke any of the rule 21 subsection. Which the pax has broken the subsection by refusing to listen to an instruction from the flight crew. It is AT THIS POINT, his deboarding become legal, not at the point he was asked to leave with by the Captain.


Also, by aviation law, Captain of the flight do not need to expel the passenger him/herself, this can be delegated to any of the senior flight crew, usually a purser but also senior flight attendant.

 

[terranMarine]

https://twitter.com/x/status/851618525022212096

Man everybody and almost all airlines are mocking UA