Originally Posted by Transpacificflyer

Please do not refer to a service or "emotional support" animal as a pet. If the animals truly are as described, then they are service animals or working animals. What we have here is a person who may have called his companion animal (aka pet) an emotional support animal. However, until that is established, the animal is deemed to be a service animal.



Yes, indeed that is what the lawsuit CLAIMS. However, it is an unsubstantiated allegation and yet to be proven in court. A prudent personal injury attorney is going to toss as many claims as he/she can and will see what sticks.

The airport and the airline were in a difficult place. If they did not accommodate the people claiming disabilities then they faced ADA litigation. It's not their fault the child was left unattended or the dog owner did not control the dog. The worst part of this event is that it is likely that the dog owner was exploiting a loophole and took advantage of an allowance intended to help those who are in true need of a service animal. The plaintiff should go after the dog owner, who most likely has no money, nor liability insurance. By naming the airport and airline there is a plan to be able to collect under joint and several liability.