Finkface

I believe the lawyer on this. Things get lost in translation when passed from person to person. The lawyer isn't going to risk his case by saying on the record on national tv that she wasn't hit if she, in fact, was.

TWA884

Let me quote you a California Jury Instruction.

TWA884

Aviation reporter Ted Reed in The Street:

GUWonder

Indeed. The inconsistent internet "witness" messages -- much built on hearsay -- about the passenger being hit with the stroller wouldn't sound as convincing to me as the woman's lawyer's statement that the FA didn't hit her with the stroller (if that is indeed what the lawyer said). When a "witness" or hearsay communicator gets basic facts wrong, their credibility does indeed tend to go down.

GUWonder

The above language about the woman hitting herself with her stroller just sounds like another attempt to blame the woman for this incident regardless of the facts. I doubt that the woman had any intention of hitting herself with her stroller. Whether or not she got injured by the stroller, well that's a different thing than "hitting herself" with a stroller or anything else. Is an author/source trying to say this female passenger is a willful masochist? Or is it an author/source trying to just say what it takes to try to point the finger of blame at this female passenger?

It's quite an era where potential plaintiff's attorney seems way more credible than "sources" with a narrative that works toward defecting blame away from the potential defendant(s).

Ber2dca

It's also possible that they want to say it was an accident. It's sometimes refreshing to live in a society where the law is designed to allow for such a thing and not just a vehicle for ambulance chasing lawyers to get rich.

GUWonder

The author/source didn't word it to say it was an accident. Rather it's more a sign of trying to paint blame upon the passenger while trying to also co-opt those open to the possibility of an accident.

In this case the ambulance chasing lawyer may seem to think that the FA did not hit the passenger with the stroller. But that doesn't mean the passenger hit herself with the stroller -- even if the stroller caused her an injury by accident.

pinniped

Well, there's been government intervention in aviation in one form or another for our entire lives. In a way, looking the other way while the airlines form an ever-shrinking oligopoly that aligns fares and carves out "turf", quasi-cartel-style, is in and of itself a form of intervention. (Some of this is enabled by cities and states; it isn't just the Feds.)

That said, I don't think we need whole new regulations on seat pitch or anything like that. I do believe the existing IDB/VDB rules need to be updated with substantially stiffer penalties for IDB, and there are some consumer protections that should be enacted to enforce fair advertising/marketing, but I don't think we have to overhaul the whole system.

To me, it's less a question of intervention or not, but is any new regulation meaningful and supportive of a better travel experience across the long-haul, not just a reaction to 1 or 2 incidents. Unintended consequences can easily detract from that long-range benefit. (An MRTC type rule being one example.)

SeaHawg

If it was an accident, I feel bad for her, but this is in no way, shape, or form another Dao 2.0.

Three days ago, I said the woman and FA were both hotheads and the wannabe toughguy made it even more tense. All should have been de-plAAned.

FA probably should be re-accomodated to another line of work, but this woman is crazy if she believes that she will get rich from this.

AA has a problem employee, but the overall process was not flawed- I totally believe her stroller was pink-tagged and she refused to gate check it. Dao incident was unfortunate and heads should roll. This was not even close- especially when her attorney admits that she was never struck by the FA. This changes the calculus for me.

Warning: There are some "if's" here, but if the woman did indeed board late, and if the stroller wasn't collapsable to the point where there was ample OHB space on an A321 (very likely, as their bins are not roomy), where else would the stroller go but underneath? A closet? No way is this thing going to be allowed to be a potential flying projectile in case of an aborted takeoff roll or an emergency stop. More and more evidence is coming to light about how petulant she was- my sympathy is inversely correlated to bad behavior inside of a metal tube.

TWA884

The "facts" will be determined by a jury, if the case gets that far, which I doubt it will. Some here choose to believe the woman and her hired gun's version, no matter what, while others wait for all the evidence, whether physical or testimonial, to emerge.

The bruise seen on her forehead in the video supports drawing an inference or even a conclusion that she was struck in the head by the stroller, be it at her doing or the flight attendant's.

Finally, let me direct you to another part of the jury instruction which I quoted above:
Both the woman and her lawyer, Mr. Demetrio, have a financial stake in the outcome of the lawsuit they are about to file.

Ber2dca

It looks to me like it's semantics trying to explain the same thing. Person A and B each hold one end of a heavy item and are pulling in opposite directions. The force applied by each person on both ends is what holds it in place. If person A suddenly lets go, the abrupt and for person B unexpected movement of the item in their direction is inevitable. This can easily and often does cause a degree of injury (it's the same principle that applies when you try to remove an item wedged somewhere, once you've freed the item from whatever force held it in place the item's movement will be surprisingly abrupt and uncontrollable).

In such an incident it would be fair to say it's an accidental injury - but in technical terms person B would have been in sole physical possession of the injuring items, as well as the sole physical cause of the item's movement toward themselves. This can be casually described as "she accidentally hit herself with the item".

ryan182

I have to say I have a lot less sympathy for this lady now that she's lawyered up and seems to be looking for a payday. AA handled this about as well as I think could be handled with getting her on another flight and the upgrade to first and apologizing. I'm guessing the lawyer, who just happens to also be representing the UA guy, reached out to extend his 15 seconds and get some more $ but unlike the UA guy who had fairly significant injuries not sure what more she should really get out of this whole situation.

Finkface

Um, no.
"Demetrio said that the woman contacted him, and he also confirmed to the “Today Show” that neither the woman nor her baby were actually hit by the stroller."

As to all the rest, totally agree.

sbrower

They will probably start with a secret database that very few people here have ever heard of, It is known as the "Aadvantage account" and I have heard rumors that it can be used to find a listing of flights on which you have traveled.

javabytes

A logical place to start... but not everybody who flies AA has an AAdvantage account or chooses to credit to it.