Originally Posted by
roadkit
You're right. We should just roll over and take it when someone with the thought capacity of a third-grader uses federal security regulations to threaten a passenger.
Even a third grader knows that two wrongs don't make a right.
I didn't say that the OP should just roll over and take it, and saying sarcastically that I'm "right" about that mischaracterizes my post. The OP should complain; and if he/she wants to dedicate his/her life to getting the FA fired (as you suggested), fine. But if he/she wants to dedicate his/her life to suing the FA again and again for "every penny" over the same incident, that's an abuse of the court system which is far worse than "threatening to call security." And it's not smart, either: the plaintiff in such abusive litigation will be bankrupted (through sanctions imposed by the court) before the defendant will.
Originally Posted by
embarcadero1
A jury might not see it that way. If the FA caused the passenger to feel that there was imminent threat of force, there might be a very nice award here.
With an "assault" claim like this (imminent threat of force because FA threatened to call security--which fastair correctly distinguished from the FA herself grabbing the OP and throwing him off the plane) I doubt that you'd even get to a jury...the judge would most likely throw the case out, thinking that no reasonable person would experience a fear of harmful bodily contact in this situation.
Otherwise, anyone in any business who ever threatened to call security and have someone removed would be sued for assault, even if the person threatened with removal was actually seat-poaching, or being disruptive, or literally stealing furniture. Remember that if your focus is "assault" based on the "threat of force," the wrongness/rightness of the FA's judgment doesn't really come into play--only the threat that was made.
There might be other viable claims if the OP was actually removed (e.g. breach of contract, since UA failed to deliver him/her from point A to point B, and it was UA's fault because the seat was broken and then a UA employee booted the OP from the plane for "poaching" another seat he/she was actually told by a UA employee to sit in), but I think assault won't fly.