Current Events > Dr. David Dao reaches settlement with United Airlines

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKBN17T2WM
---

@theshamen
---

BigStory
---

Oh look united wasnt sued out of existence
---

Why was United only liable and not the Chicago police department?

I would have went with free flights for life.
---

Just admit you are wrong once in awhile Theshamen
---

EnterTheTekken posted...

Why was United only liable and not the Chicago police department?

I thought airports usually have Federal Law Enforcement not local ones?

EnterTheTekken posted...

Why was United only liable and not the Chicago police department?

The CPD had nothing to do with it
---

A racist shitposter already made a topic about this

EnterTheTekken posted...

Why was United only liable and not the Chicago police department?

United was responsible because the injuries the doctor sustained came from being forced out due to him refusing to leave after they breached their contract.

Which means provided the cops didn't do anything wrong themselves, the airline it to blame
---

EnterTheTekken posted...

Why was United only liable and not the Chicago police department?

They aren't they're settling to make this go away. Part of a settlement like this is that in exchange for money Dao agrees to not sue for the incident. Most settlements include language that allows the company to "not admit to any wrongdoing"

Twitterfriends, the worst fake lawyer on the internet, seems to think that this makes me wrong when I said that Dao wouldn't win against united in court
---

Pretty sure everyone figured they would settle out of court. However you said the passenger "wouldn't get any money".

I know you hate being wrong but now you're just digging yourself a bigger hole lmao
---

He ain't gonna get shit, the dude was resisting police officers.

- Theshamen

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/2000211-sports-and-racing-nfl/75221129

"twitterfriends, I was wrong sir and you were right 100% I am sorry." C'mon it's not even that hard
---

twitterfriends posted...

He ain't gonna get shit, the dude was resisting police officers.

- @Theshamen

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/2000211-sports-and-racing-nfl/75221129

"twitterfriends, I was wrong sir and you were right 100% I am sorry." C'mon it's not even that hard

I don't get these guys like Theshamen and The Admiral who insist that because he refused to leave his seat the airline didn't breach their contract.

There's just no logic there...
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't get these guys like Theshamen and The Admiral who insist that because he refused to leave his seat the airline didn't breach their contract.

There's just no logic there...

1) Buying a ticket is not entering into a legal contract. All he is entitled to is his money back if they fail to provide service.
2) The airline was within its rights to ask him to leave.
3) The airline did not injure him.
---

The Admiral posted...

1) Buying a ticket is not entering into a legal contract. All he is entitled to is his money back if they fail to provide service.
2) The airline was within its rights to ask him to leave.
3) The airline did not injure him.

We went over this in your topic and you ran away.

Yes buying a ticket is a contract.

The airline was within it's rights to ask him to leave but once he said no, and they forced him out, they had violated their contract because he had boarded and the flight was not oversold. At that point they had no legs to stand on to boot him out. They had fucked up by allowing everyone to board and then deciding to toss people out at the last minute to make room for their staff.

Then they are liable for the injuries he recieved that only occured because of their breach in contract.


5, 21, 25

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx/
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking77
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html

The Admiral posted...

Those are included under section 25 of your own links, which allow the airline to deny boarding to anyone if the flight is oversold. I'm sure you're going to argue semantics here and claim that he already technically boarded, but that's essentially irrelevant. They have a legal right to deny passengers transportation in that situation.

The flight wasn't oversold and he did board.

Neither of these two points are irrelevant and they do not have the right to force people off the plane under those circumstances. That's a breach of contract.

The airline fucked up. Doesn't matter if the Dr was a douche, the airline fucked up.

To clarify this is their contract's definition of oversold:

Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.

That wasn't the case

---

twitterfriends posted...

He ain't gonna get shit, the dude was resisting police officers.

- Theshamen

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/2000211-sports-and-racing-nfl/75221129

"twitterfriends, I was wrong sir and you were right 100% I am sorry." C'mon it's not even that hard

Lol that was in response to freaking joe thomas saying he was gonna be a majority shareholder in united, come on now.
---

I hope he got a shit ton of money tbh.
---

Theshamen posted...

twitterfriends posted...

He ain't gonna get shit, the dude was resisting police officers.

- Theshamen

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/2000211-sports-and-racing-nfl/75221129

"twitterfriends, I was wrong sir and you were right 100% I am sorry." C'mon it's not even that hard

Lol that was in response to freaking joe thomas saying he was gonna be a majority shareholder in united, come on now.

And like always with this stuff the stock will bounce back in a week and no they haven't violated anything in their code because the second he resisted police officers he boned himself.

erm
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't get these guys like Theshamen and The Admiral who insist that because he refused to leave his seat the airline didn't breach their contract.

There's just no logic there...

From UA's contract of carriage

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

C. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.


Earlier in the contract of carriage UA's definition of force majeure includes


c.Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
d.Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;



Now given that Dao was bumped to ferry employees to solve a shortage of labor caused by a government regulation about time between flights.

I'd say they are comfortably within their contract.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

erm

http://fortune.com/2017/04/12/united-airlines-stock/

Oh look the stock bounced back
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes buying a ticket is a contract.

It isn't, but I'm sure you'll keep repeating that.
---

Theshamen posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't get these guys like Theshamen and The Admiral who insist that because he refused to leave his seat the airline didn't breach their contract.

There's just no logic there...

From UA's contract of carriage

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

C. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.


Earlier in the contract of carriage UA's definition of force majeure includes


c.Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
d.Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;



Now given that Dao was bumped to ferry employees to solve a shortage of labor caused by a government regulation about time between flights.

I'd say they are comfortably within their contract.

Indeed. A team of lawyers can try bullshit like this. Key point there was "Not limited too" and "disorderly"

Like I said in the other topic, stuff like this why there's no such thing as a sure thing case and why if I was him I would also have taken the settlement.

If it went to court rather than a settlement the airline could argue all sorts of shit. Like that the guy was interfering with staff by refusing to leave, that he was interfering with safety by refusing to let staff board.

"Disorderly" by itself is a can of worms.

And that's not to mention as Admiral has already brought up, smearing the guy for being a douche would go far in a court to hurt his case.

It would have been a clusterfuck of a case.

I think the Dr would have still won, but only after 2 years of circus acts.

However I disagree with your assertion that "in a court it's possible that lawyers could have twisted the case." as they weren't violating contract. It's there clear as day.

None of those circumstances you just mentioned actually account for someone boarding on an non-overbooked flight being physically thrown out. The airline's policy (every single US Airline policy) is to sort this shit out before anybody boards.
---

The Admiral posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes buying a ticket is a contract.

It isn't, but I'm sure you'll keep repeating that.

I googled and I've talked to lawyers, and they all say a ticket is a contract.
---

The Admiral posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes buying a ticket is a contract.

It isn't, but I'm sure you'll keep repeating that.

It is.


And I am sure you will never attempt to explain how it is not and will also keep ignoring every point people raise.
---

EnterTheTekken posted...

Why was United only liable and not the Chicago police department?

CPD weren't the guys who dragged him off the plane. That was private security.
---

Bandit_Keith posted...

The Admiral posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes buying a ticket is a contract.

It isn't, but I'm sure you'll keep repeating that.

I googled and I've talked to lawyers, and they all say a ticket is a contract.

Admiral claims to be a bigshot on Wall Street banging supermodels and rich, I'm sure in his constructed reality, he's also smarter and knows more about law than lawyers

UnfairRepresent posted...

Theshamen posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't get these guys like Theshamen and The Admiral who insist that because he refused to leave his seat the airline didn't breach their contract.

There's just no logic there...

From UA's contract of carriage

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

C. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.


Earlier in the contract of carriage UA's definition of force majeure includes


c.Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
d.Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;



Now given that Dao was bumped to ferry employees to solve a shortage of labor caused by a government regulation about time between flights.

I'd say they are comfortably within their contract.

Indeed. A team of lawyers can try bullshit like this. Key point there was "Not limited too" and "disorderly"

Like I said in the other topic, stuff like this why there's no such thing as a sure thing case and why if I was him I would also have taken the settlement.

If it went to court rather than a settlement the airline could argue all sorts of shit. Like that the guy was interfering with staff by refusing to leave, that he was interfering with safety by refusing to let staff board.

"Disorderly" by itself is a can of worms.

And that's not to mention as Admiral has already brought up, smearing the guy for being a douche would go far in a court to hurt his case.

It would have been a clusterfuck of a case.

I think the Dr would have still won, but only after 2 years of circus acts.

However I disagree with your assertion that "in a court it's possible that lawyers could have twisted the case." as they weren't violating contract. It's there clear as day.

None of those circumstances you just mentioned actually account for someone boarding on an non-overbooked flight being physically thrown out. The airline's policy (every single US Airline policy) is to sort this shit out before anybody boards.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Did you not even read my post?





UnfairRepresent posted...

None of those circumstances you just mentioned actually account for someone boarding on an non-overbooked flight being physically thrown out.

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

d.Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
---

dr. Dao is vietnamese. did you guys know that Dao means hurt in vietnamese? so he's Dr. Hurt

Theshamen posted...

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

d.Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;

That's because for reasons unknown you're mixing up rule 21 and 24. I hope you didn't just ctrl + f and then search random things

They can legally cancel the flight because they don't have staff. They can't kick you off once you have boarded to make room for staff.
---

Z_Zenkai1992 posted...

dr. Dao is vietnamese. did you guys know that Dao means hurt in vietnamese? so he's Dr. Hurt

The same Dr. Hurt that tried to break the Batman?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's because for reasons unknown you're mixing up rule 21 and 24. I hope you didn't just ctrl + f and then search random things

They can legally cancel the flight because they don't have staff. They can't kick you off once you have boarded to make room for staff

Rule 21 says they can remove you from the flight at any point for a force majeure reason

One of the things they define as a force majeure reason is having a staffing issue.

They also define compliance with government regulation as a force majeure reason

Dao was removed to make room for a flight crew going to solve a staffing issue that was caused by government regulation.

At this point you are just intentionally not reading my posts to further your narrative and attack strawmen
---

Listen @Theshamen

United Airlines LOST.

The consumer and everyday American WON.

Go cry in a corner alone because barely anyone agrees with you - take the L.
---

I wonder how many people are going to opt out for the 10k (In cash, not a shitty ticket voucher.)
---

Theshamen posted...

Rule 21 says they can remove you from the flight at any point for a force majeure reason

Are you aware of a concept called Jury Nullification?

It happens when a man who is obviously guilty is handed down a not guilty verdict by the Jury flying in the face of all reason. This is most often done when the jurors think the law itself is bullshit.

United Airlines is well within their rights to remove people, but Americans have decided that they are wrong regardless.
---

twitterfriends posted...

Listen @Theshamen

United Airlines LOST.

The consumer and everyday American WON.

Go cry in a corner alone because barely anyone agrees with you - take the L.

Says the guy who has literally been punted out of both 261 and nflb and has their own entry on wikifaqs for being a terrible poster
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Are you aware of a concept called Jury Nullification?

It happens when a man who is obviously guilty is handed down a not guilty verdict by the Jury flying in the face of all reason. This is most often done when the jurors think the law itself is bulls***.

United Airlines is well within their rights to remove people, but Americans have decided that they are wrong regardless.

That's fine, but I'm not discussing whether or not united airlines was right or wrong, merely that they were within the stipulations of their contract of carriage. Furthermore I doubt that had Dao not gotten roughed up so dramatically by the airport PD on his way out that
1. This story would have hit more than the local news
2. A jury would "nullify" the right of an airline to remove passengers from their planes when they see a need.

And the internet mob is a far cry from jury nullification.
---

Theshamen posted...

And the internet mob is a far cry from jury nullification.

But the internet mob can make it so that any airline that does this sort of shit suffers greatly for it as in the case of Dr. Dao.

This is capitalism. This is how it improves. Customers are unhappy with a business, they take their business elsewhere, the business loses money.

Dr. Dao likely settled not because he couldn't win, but because he'd get the money immediately as opposed to a long drawn out fight over the course of years.
---

Theshamen posted...

ule 21 says they can remove you from the flight at any point for a force majeure reason
One of the things they define as a force majeure reason is having a staffing issue.
They also define compliance with government regulation as a force majeure reason
Dao was removed to make room for a flight crew going to solve a staffing issue that was caused by government regulation.
At this point you are just intentionally not reading my posts to further your narrative and attack strawmen

I'll quote Mark Pestronk on this:

Nothing in any federal or state statute or regulation authorizes an airline to remove anyone from any aircraft to accommodate deadheading (traveling for free) crew members. If the forcible removal was legal, it would have to have been authorized by the relevant contract of carriage, which binds the passenger regardless of whether he or she gets a copy of the contract or even a notice of its existence. U.S. DOT regulations require carriers to give passengers written notice about the existence of the contract of carriage, and the carriers typically do so when the GDS issues an e-ticket with a lot of fine print under the heading, "Notice of incorporated terms of contract."

United's contract of carriage has no less than 26 grounds for removing passengers from aircraft, but not one of them states that a passenger can be removed to accommodate a deadheading crew member. The closest that United comes is the grounds called "Force majeure and other unforeseeable conditions." However, United has not cited any unforeseeable condition in this case.

This means that United breached its contract with the passenger, who can now sue for the breach. Because of the federal preemption rule, he may have trouble suing on other grounds that could lead to higher damages, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or false imprisonment.

For the future, United could amend its contract to include the crew needs as a 27th ground for removal, in which case the passenger could not even sue for breach of contract.

Numerous articles and social media commentaries referred to the DOT's Denied Boarding Compensation regulations, which provide that involuntarily bumped passengers are entitled to collect up to $1,350. However, those rules apply only to "oversales," when too many people have confirmed reservations. In this case, there apparently was no oversale so United could not justify its actions by citing those rules. In any event, I don't think that the denied boarding rules allow removal from the aircraft as opposed to denial of boarding in the first place. Although United did allegedly ask for volunteers in return for money and only chose to remove the passenger after there were not enough volunteers, use of this procedure did not excuse United's breach of the contract.

What you don't seem to understand is 'Force Majeure' does not mean "We can legally do what we like when we feel like it." there has to be a justified reason. "After boarding we forced you off to make room for our staff" doesn't qualify.


Force majeure is generally intended to include occurrences beyond the reasonable control of a party, and therefore would not cover:

Any result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which has a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations.

You're better off sticking with "He was disorderly" or "He endangered the staff/flight"
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'll quote Mark Pestronk on this:

Nothing in any federal or state statute or regulation authorizes an airline to remove anyone from any aircraft to accommodate deadheading (traveling for free) crew members. If the forcible removal was legal, it would have to have been authorized by the relevant contract of carriage, which binds the passenger regardless of whether he or she gets a copy of the contract or even a notice of its existence. U.S. DOT regulations require carriers to give passengers written notice about the existence of the contract of carriage, and the carriers typically do so when the GDS issues an e-ticket with a lot of fine print under the heading, "Notice of incorporated terms of contract."

United's contract of carriage has no less than 26 grounds for removing passengers from aircraft, but not one of them states that a passenger can be removed to accommodate a deadheading crew member. The closest that United comes is the grounds called "Force majeure and other unforeseeable conditions." However, United has not cited any unforeseeable condition in this case.

This means that United breached its contract with the passenger, who can now sue for the breach. Because of the federal preemption rule, he may have trouble suing on other grounds that could lead to higher damages, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or false imprisonment.

For the future, United could amend its contract to include the crew needs as a 27th ground for removal, in which case the passenger could not even sue for breach of contract.

Numerous articles and social media commentaries referred to the DOT's Denied Boarding Compensation regulations, which provide that involuntarily bumped passengers are entitled to collect up to $1,350. However, those rules apply only to "oversales," when too many people have confirmed reservations. In this case, there apparently was no oversale so United could not justify its actions by citing those rules. In any event, I don't think that the denied boarding rules allow removal from the aircraft as opposed to denial of boarding in the first place. Although United did allegedly ask for volunteers in return for money and only chose to remove the passenger after there were not enough volunteers, use of this procedure did not excuse United's breach of the contract.

What you don't seem to understand is 'Force Majeure' does not mean "We can legally do what we like when we feel like it." there has to be a justified reason. "After boarding we forced you off to make room for our staff" doesn't qualify.

He literally mentions force majeure as the reason they would use, but dismisses it because at the time they hadn't cited a reason for it. Since that time they have cited a reason which is that they had a crew issue at the destination airport caused by weather and government regulation, both force majuere reasons.
---

Theshamen posted...

He literally mentions force majeure as the reason they would use, but dismisses it because at the time they hadn't cited a reason for it.

The quote is from yesterday.

They never cited a reason for it. They admitted fault, settled .

And those are not force majuere reasons. That wouldn't hold up in court.



Force majeure is generally intended to include occurrences beyond the reasonable control of a party, and therefore would not cover:

Any result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which has a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations.

You're better off sticking with "He was disorderly" or "He endangered the staff/flight"

"We fucked up and let you board and now need to throw 4 staffers on" is negligence
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Theshamen posted...

He literally mentions force majeure as the reason they would use, but dismisses it because at the time they hadn't cited a reason for it.

The quote is from yesterday.

They never cited a reason for it. They admitted fault, settled .

And those are not force majuere reasons. That wouldn't hold up in court.



Force majeure is generally intended to include occurrences beyond the reasonable control of a party, and therefore would not cover:

Any result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which has a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations.

You're better off sticking with "He was disorderly" or "He endangered the staff/flight"

"We fucked up and let you board and now need to throw 4 staffers on" is negligence

They define what they are considering force majeure in their contract and list as reasons weather, government regulation, and staffing needs.

And of course they settled, they're a business stuck in a PR nightmare, there is absolutely no reason for UA to take responsibility for the actions of the airport police other than to make this go away as quickly as possible.
---

lol at the UA ball slurpers
---

Not according to them, their lawyers, Dao's lawyers and neutral lawyers.

"Force majeure " does not and can not mean "We can void this agreement for any fucking reason we like and then say it was unforeseen consequences, even if those consequences are our own fault because we're shit."

Hell such a statement would render the whole contract meaningless and they could be sued for that. If anything it would make the case even bigger.
---

Coolppl Owns posted...

lol at the UA ball slurpers

*shrug*

I just dislike when the internet tries to armchair lawyer
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Not according to them, their lawyers, Dao's lawyers and neutral lawyers.

"Force majeure " does not and can not mean "We can void this agreement for any fucking reason we like and then say it was unforeseen consequences, even if those consequences are our own fault because we're shit."

That's exactly what it means, unless you expect them to fly a plane through a blizzard because you "have boarded" and think it gives you a magical right to stay in your seat.

Hell such a statement would render the whole contract meaningless and they could be sued for that. If anything it would make the case even bigger.

The whole point of force majeure is when an unforseen circumstance prevents normal operations by way of something that is out of UA's control.

A flight crew being delayed by weather and forced to stay grounded because of government regulation is the very thing that is out of UA's control
---

Theshamen posted...

Coolppl Owns posted...

lol at the UA ball slurpers

*shrug*

I just dislike when the internet tries to armchair lawyer

WTF? Thats literally what you're doing.

And you're arguing against real lawyers and the company you're defending....

You're a massive hypocrite.
---

Theshamen posted...

That's exactly what it means, unless you expect them to fly a plane through a blizzard because you "have boarded" and think it gives you a magical right to stay in your seat.

No that's the point. Something like a blizzard or having no fuel unexpected is a valid circumstance, which is why they are listed.

"We need to boot you off by force to make room for our staff." is not.

Theshamen posted...

The whole point of force majeure is when an unforseen circumstance prevents normal operations by way of something that is out of UA's control.

A flight crew being delayed by weather and forced to stay grounded because of government regulation is the very thing that is out of UA's control

Not so because the passangers had already boarded. That makes it an airlines fuck up. Again I keep saying and you keep ignoring, Force Majeure is not "whatever reason we decide to boot you off for is okay."

You killed it yourself by bringing up examples such as blizzards.

I have to repeat that you have more traction with the "Disorderly, unsafe for staff" stances than "The airline fucking up is force majeure."
---