- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: United's dragged passenger hires high-powered Chicago personal injury lawyer
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:38 am to Tiger Prawn
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:38 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:To occupy a seat on an object for transport.
One involves a long term agreement to occupy a piece of immovable property as a residence. The other is a one time transportation agreement
quote:You're focusing on "different"
Both have completely different legally permissible options for the owner/company to "re-accommodate" you.
Do both have legally permissible options for owner/company to reaccomodate you? Yes, correct? Ok, so it's not apples/oranges at all. Just like the landlord can't remove you for any reason he wants, it has to be for reasons specified in the legally binding contract, correct? Same for UA, correct?
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 9:44 am
0
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:40 am to shel311
quote:
There's also a legal process that lays out legal reasons UA can remove this person from the flight. They cannot remove him for ANY reason they want, so how is it not applicable?
Its all laid out in the carriage contract. The guy might be able to beat them on a technicality because it wasn't "oversold" but needed to transport employees to work another flight in Louisville.
But doesn't change the fact that resisting security in an airport or on a plane is a violation of federal law. United fricked up the situation, but the guy being dragged off the plane and getting a cut is his own doing...not United's.
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 9:41 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:41 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Why is an apartment lease and an airline ticket apples and oranges? Man, if you can't figure that out then there's little I can do to help you.
Perhaps a better scenario would be if you rented a car and then the rental car company called the cops and said you stole it, even though you signed a contract, stuck to it's provisions, and returned it on time.
Would the rental car company have a case? Would you be legally obligated to hand the car over even though you followed the agreement?
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 9:45 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:41 am to slackster
quote:
but legally they're in the clear
Not really. Their contract doesn't really address anything once boarding has taken place. They will likely lose in court. But to not settle and drag this out will lose them more money PR rise than the bloodied passenger will get.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:42 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
But doesn't change the fact that resisting security in an airport or on a plane is a violation of federal law
What exactly do you think lawful commands mean? That they can just tell you to do anything and if you don't comply, you go to jail?
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 9:43 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:42 am to LSU0358
Why exactly is this United's problem? They followed protocol and called terminal security. Terminal security is the one who slammed this guys face into the seat, not United. Are Americans really this fricking retarded? Yes.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:43 am to 1MileTiger
quote:
Why exactly is this United's problem?
Read the whole thread.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:44 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Perhaps a better scenario would be if you rented a car and then the rental car company called the cops and said you stole it, even though you signed a contract, stuck to it's provisions, and returned it on time.
Would the rental car company have a case? Would you be legally obligated to hand it over even though you followed the agreement?
Then the rental car company would be breaking the law by filing a false police report.
Better comparison would be if you had made a reservation to rent a car, then showed up to pick it up and they told you they didn't have any cars available.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:44 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:That's basically my entire point. I wouldn't call that a technicality at all, but semantics.
Its all laid out in the carriage contract. The guy might be able to beat them on a technicality because it wasn't "oversold" but needed to transport employees to work another flight in Louisville.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:44 am to 1MileTiger
quote:
Are Americans really this fricking retarded
No. Most airlines have crappy service and that is what is bringing out the vitriol.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:45 am to slackster
quote:
I can't see a reason he would get anywhere near $1MM.
United will pay that much just to make him shut up and this disappear from the public eye, not that it is right but just the way things are.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:45 am to 1MileTiger
quote:Because...they very well may not have
Why exactly is this United's problem?
quote:
followed protocol
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:45 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Then the rental car company would be breaking the law by filing a false police report.
Like calling the police over a passenger who is tresspassing but really wasn't?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:46 am to Tiger in NY
quote:
No. He had a legal right to take them to court. The remedy outlined in his contract doesn't include him refusing to leave.
Except for the fact that if he got up out of his seat there is absolutely no reason to go to court. It's laughable to go to court after the fact if you needed to be on the plane to get home.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:46 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:Nah, you're in the rental car getting ready to drive off, then they tell you they just got a call, and that last rental car needs to go to an employee to go pick up another employee...but that may not be anywhere in the contract as a legal provision to nullify the signed contract you already have.
Better comparison would be if you had made a reservation to rent a car, then showed up to pick it up and they told you they didn't have any cars available.
That's the comparison.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:47 am to shel311
Yes, but United itself did not destroy the man's face on a seat.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:48 am to 1MileTiger
quote:
Yes, but United itself did not destroy the man's face on a seat.
They claimed he was essentially tresspassing, when legally he wasn't. Should they be held responsible for that?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:49 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Better comparison would be if you had made a reservation to rent a car, then showed up to pick it up and they told you they didn't have any cars available.
And then went and sat in a car on the lot that was for someone else and you refused to get out of the car even when the police asked you several times to get out of the car or you would be removed by force.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:49 am to Choupique19
No, that's for law enforcement and a judge to decide.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:50 am to NYNolaguy1
LINK
quote:
"The minute you become non-compliant with cabin crew and the pilot, the pilot is authorized by FAA law to take you off the flight. They are in full control over the safety on that flight," Kelly said.
Page 14 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News