MelosSoreWrist wrote:Fat Kat wrote:GONYK wrote:
Of course it does. It is a contract. It has been enforced before, and it will be enforced again, in some way, in the future.
That is why things like the involuntary removal incentive even exists. Every airline has contractual language allowing them to do this.
A policy like this is necessary to run an airline, which is why the government allows them to do this.
This article contends that the removal was in fact illegal.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_10
Different article, different author, same analysis.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/The two articles basically say that all the power in the contract to bump a passenger goes away once the passenger boards the plane. There is no language that says an airline can kick a passenger off once he has boarded unless he is unruly, belligerent etc. And according to the authors thats null and void as well since he didnt become "unruly" until he was giving unlawful orders.
FatKats article has this part thats interesting
The last aspect of this case, the most disturbing one, is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances.
A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser.
Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.
In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay, and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.
That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house.
In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.
Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.
United could actually be liable for damages done by the police? Similar principles to a getaway driver being charged with murder if there are deaths connected to the crime even if he wasnt involved in the killing?
Well, both articles present an interesting argument that is worth considering, but I do think there are a few things about the arguments that leave them open to be taken apart in a courtroom.
First, the author passes off his legal interpretations for set in stone law, so it is important to bear in mind that everything said in that article is interpretation and thus could be interpreted differently by a judge.
For example, this whole line of reasoning hinges very heavily on his interpretation of "boarded". He argues for it's plain meaning to be used as it's legal definition. United is an airline in a highly regulated industry, however, so it's probably a term of art that would be interpreted according to the market standard, which may be that boarding isn't over until the door is closed. So you can still be "denied boarding" after you've been seated.
After taking a look at the relevant federal statute (I'm spending way too much time on this) it seems pretty clear that the implication of "denied boarding" is "denied a seat on the plane
and transport to the destination", so that would certainly cut against that article's interpretation of the phrase.
Secondly, it conflates the rights associated with
denied boarding and the
refusal to transport laws. It would seem that anyone arguing for Dao would prefer him to be treated under the rule on denied boarding rather than the rule on refusal to transport, because under denied boarding you get compensation, under refusal to transport you don't.
I don't think it is a very difficult argument for the airline to make that a
force majeure event (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) made it advisable for them to refuse him transport so they could get the airline employees on the plane.
So if the above is legal, according to federal statute, then once Mr. Dao got agitated after they asked him to leave, he would certainly fall under the whole disorderly conduct provision that would prompt him to be removed.
Also, there is also this in the contract of carriage:
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives are subject to removal; This is the clause that puts a major dent in Dao's defense.
United can argue that a force majeure event created the need to get the other airline employees onto the plane to avoid cancelling other flights and inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers vs just inconveniencing one passenger. Federal law grants flight crews large leeways of power in this arena, since we are talking safety of operation in the matter as well.