Passenger left on plane

[jtrain609]

You guys really can't see that the crew, and in this case specifically the FA, was negligent in performing their duties? It's the crews JOB to make sure everybody is off the airplane. You wanna talk about responsibility? How about for doing their job and making sure everybody is off the plane at the end of the day.

Further, you'd be how many cases actually go more like this:

1. Something bad happens.

2. The person that had something bad happens says, "Hey if you just say you're sorry, we can all move on from this."

3. The party that did the bad thing says, "FUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

4. The person that had something bad happens, "No, really, this isn't that big of a deal, but a formal apology would be wonderful."

5. ".....FUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!"

6. "Alright, you wanna play games? We'll play games."

7. *files claim*

8. The party that screwed up now suddenly wants to settle.

Seriously, it blows my mind that large corporations don't want to even admit that you exist until you file a claim against them. Remember the whole "United Breaks Guitars" song? The guy tried to work it out with United, but they weren't interested until they were embarrassed in the public arena.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

You guys really can't see that the crew, and in this case specifically the FA, was negligent in performing their duties? It's the crews JOB to make sure everybody is off the airplane. You wanna talk about responsibility? How about for doing their job and making sure everybody is off the plane at the end of the day.

Further, you'd be how many cases actually go more like this:

1. Something bad happens.

2. The person that had something bad happens says, "Hey if you just say you're sorry, we can all move on from this."

3. The party that did the bad thing says, "FUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

4. The person that had something bad happens, "No, really, this isn't that big of a deal, but a formal apology would be wonderful."

5. ".....FUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!"

6. "Alright, you wanna play games? We'll play games."

7. *files claim*

8. The party that screwed up now suddenly wants to settle.

Seriously, it blows my mind that large corporations don't want to even admit that you exist until you file a claim against them. Remember the whole "United Breaks Guitars" song? The guy tried to work it out with United, but they weren't interested until they were embarrassed in the public arena.

Except that this lady has NO CLUE why she is even filing the lawsuit.

She skipped steps 1 through 6 in your process.

I'd really like to see this lady lose, and lose hard, on this lawsuit. Being laughed out of court would be a good start.

I'm surprised that no one has discussed a fine being assessed for violating security procedures (well, it hasn't happened yet, why not?)

 

[JumpWake]

Because shes the "victim" here.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Except that this lady has NO CLUE why she is even filing the lawsuit.

She skipped steps 1 through 6 in your process.

How do we know that she skipped steps 1 through 6?

I don't know much about civil suits, but I can certainly back up jtrain's series of events when it comes to grievance work, and I would imagine that it's very similar in civil situations.

Pilot: Mr. Chief Pilot, crew scheduling illegally assigned me to a 14 hour duty day when the contract limits it to 12.

CP: (makes up some ridiculous interpretation in a vain attempt to justify the blatant violation)

Pilot: Um, yeah, look, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but if you can help me out and just give me extension pay for those two hours of work, I'll be happy.

CP: (repeats ridiculous interpretation) We ain't giving you jack!

Pilot: Seriously, I'm not asking for much here. If I have to file a grievance it will be for a lot more.

CP: We ain't giving you jack!

Pilot: Files grievance for entire day at extension pay, cease and desist letter, and paid day off of his choosing.

Company pays Ford & Harrison $15,000 to arbitrate the case, and loses. ALPA's lawyers are salaried, and don't cost us anything extra.

Gee, it would have just cost you $200 if you had admitted that you were wrong in the first place.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

How do we know that she skipped steps 1 through 6?

I don't know much about civil suits, but I can certainly back up jtrain's series of events when it comes to grievance work, and I would imagine that it's very similar in civil situations.

Pilot: Mr. Chief Pilot, crew scheduling illegally assigned me to a 14 hour duty day when the contract limits it to 12.

CP: (makes up some ridiculous interpretation in a vain attempt to justify the blatant violation)

Pilot: Um, yeah, look, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but if you can help me out and just give me extension pay for those two hours of work, I'll be happy.

CP: (repeats ridiculous interpretation) We ain't giving you jack!

Pilot: Seriously, I'm not asking for much here. If I have to file a grievance it will be for a lot more.

CP: We ain't giving you jack!

Pilot: Files grievance for entire day at extension pay, cease and desist letter, and paid day off of his choosing.

Company pays Ford & Harrison $15,000 to arbitrate the case, and loses. ALPA's lawyers are salaried, and don't cost us anything extra.

Gee, it would have just cost you $200 if you had admitted that you were wrong in the first place.

Thing is, she sounds reallllllly lost on the phone call.

Now, will ALPA proteect those crewmembers if the company loses a civil suit then fires them for negligence?

Double-edged sword, to protect the crew or not to...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Now, will ALPA proteect those crewmembers if the company loses a civil suit then fires them for negligence?

Double-edged sword, to protect the crew or not to...

Where is the double-edged sword? Of course ALPA would defend the pilots, although I doubt the company would do anything to them, since I've never seen a manual that requires pilots to sweep the cabin at the end of the day.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Where is the double-edged sword? Of course ALPA would defend the pilots, although I doubt the company would do anything to them, since I've never seen a manual that requires pilots to sweep the cabin at the end of the day.

True true. But companies have an odd way of spinning things in their favor. I just don't see "defending the lawsuit" and "defending the crew" as potentially mutually exclusive.

 

[Kristie]

Except that this lady has NO CLUE why she is even filing the lawsuit.

She skipped steps 1 through 6 in your process.

I'd really like to see this lady lose, and lose hard, on this lawsuit. Being laughed out of court would be a good start.

I'm surprised that no one has discussed a fine being assessed for violating security procedures (well, it hasn't happened yet, why not?)

and you know this how? first hand knowledge? i don't think so...one should not be so presumptuous...

the lawsuit didn't come out for a few days after the incident...

 

[SpiceWeasel]

and you know this how? first hand knowledge? i don't think so...one should not be so presumptuous...

the lawsuit didn't come out for a few days after the incident...

Well, why on earth did she sound so clueless as to what the lawsuit was about then.... and when put on the defensive.... "you'll have to ask my lawyer". It's your lawsuit, lady, better get familiar with it.

Maybe she'd have better luck saying that the 3-hour "tarmac" rule was violated?

Either way, not a big fan of someone who can't figure out how to open a door on an airplane and claims "false imprisonment". Aren't there safety demos and briefing cards she should be reading?

"False imprisonment" screams frivolous to me. I hope she loses. I really do.

 

[jtrain609]

Well, why on earth did she sound so clueless as to what the lawsuit was about then.... and when put on the defensive.... "you'll have to ask my lawyer". It's your lawsuit, lady, better get familiar with it.

Maybe she'd have better luck saying that the 3-hour "tarmac" rule was violated?

Either way, not a big fan of someone who can't figure out how to open a door on an airplane and claims "false imprisonment". Aren't there safety demos and briefing cards she should be reading?

"False imprisonment" screams frivolous to me. I hope she loses. I really do.

That's like saying a passenger better be familiar with the plane they're being transported on.

You hire an attorney because you can't do the work yourself. People are under no obligation to hire an attorney to file their legal work, though many chose to do so.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

That's like saying a passenger better be familiar with the plane they're being transported on.

You hire an attorney because you can't do the work yourself. People are under no obligation to hire an attorney to file their legal work, though many chose to do so.

Well... as an attorney(-in training), is there something you learn about what your client knows vs. you?

Or can I pretty much just say I want to sue this person because he/she/it did something, and that's it... you take care of everything else?

 

[jtrain609]

Well... as an attorney(-in training), is there something you learn about what your client knows vs. you?

Or can I pretty much just say I want to sue this person because he/she/it did something, and that's it... you take care of everything else?

You ask an attorney if there is the possibility of a valid claim, if there is, then the client makes the choice of how they want to proceed.

Contrary to popular belief, you can't sue for ANYTHING. You're gonna have to bring a specific claim.

Negligence is a claim.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

You ask an attorney if there is the possibility of a valid claim, if there is, then the client makes the choice of how they want to proceed.

Contrary to popular belief, you can't sue for ANYTHING. You're gonna have to bring a specific claim.

Negligence is a claim.

However, where the smell test gets me is:

"False imprisonment"... I mean... seriously?

To recover damages for false imprisonment, an individual must be confined to a substantial degree, with her or his freedom of movement totally restrained. Interfering with or obstructing an individual's freedom to go where she or he wishes does not constitute false imprisonment. For example, if Bob enters a room, and Anne prevents him from leaving through one exit but does not prevent him from leaving the way he came in, Bob has not been falsely imprisoned. An accidental or inadvertent confinement, such as when someone is mistakenly locked in a room, also does not constitute false imprisonment; the individual who caused the confinement must have intended the restraint.

 

[jtrain609]

The restatement definition, which may or may not be used in the jurisdiction that the case will be in states:

False Imprisonment

The Restatement (2nd) of Torts, §31, reads:

(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for false imprisonment if:
(a) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor, and
(b) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, and
(c) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.

False imprisonment has four elements:

intent,
actual confinement in boundaries not of the plaintiff's choosing,
a causal link, and
awareness of the confinement.
It has been said that, "[t]he essence of false imprisonment is the intentional, unlawful, and unconsented restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another." False imprisonment can be accomplished by words alone, an unfounded assertion of legal authority (such as impersonating a police officer), or by confiscating someone's physical property in order to keep the person from leaving. False imprisonment can even result from an intentional breach of a duty to release people, such as keeping someone in a mental institution longer than the state mandated sentence or the failure to place someone in court promptly following an arrest.

But, it has been held that, "false imprisonment may not be predicated upon a person's unfounded belief that he was restrained" - this analysis could focus on either the intent of the accused or the valid beliefs of the purported victim. Questions of fact may arise in individual cases concerning the degree of the person's deprivation, whether the belief in the deprivation was reasonable, or whether there was consent to the deprivation.

It would depend on how the individual jurisdiction interpets this restatement definition, if it is in fact used.

Further, if you had an engine on fire, would you simply just pull the t-handle and say, "Huh, well, that cut off the gas, so the fire is likely out, let's not worry about blowing the bottle." No, you finish the job.

Same thing here. If the court doesn't like it, then the claim will fail.

 

[CaptBill]

Without taking either side, let's consider another option. As passengers deplane the aircraft this lady decides to conceal herself until everyone is off the airplane. She hangs out for a few hours and then alerts authorities anticipating a huge payoff for her horrific ordeal. If I were the company (UAL), I would consider presenting her attorney with an option to accept an apology or prepare to defend a trespassing charge. UAL's legal department has pretty deep pockets in matters like this.

I personally feel the crew dropped the ball here, but her looking to cash in on a simple oversight is a bit much in my opinion. I would think there will be a re-emphasis on insuring the cabin is empty before crews deplane.