AS Sued After "Emotional Support" Pit Bull Attacks a 5-Year-Old Girl at PDX
#16
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: YYZ
Programs: Hilton Diamond Mariott Plat UA Silver Aeroplan E25K SAS Gold NEXUS
Posts: 1,306
Point here is the owner should be on the hook for this as far as I'm concerned. There are also far better breeds to be service animals than this one, when one is legitimately needed.
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,506
While the airline is in a "no win" situation, the airline is also a proper defendant. Speaking generally, if you must get to Gate 100 to get to your flight on ABC Airlines, and "service animals" are permitted on your route to Gate 100, and a "service animal" attacks on your route to Gate 100, and you really had no other access to Gate 100, and it is known that the moniker "service animal" includes untrained bogus "service" animals, there's no question that the airline put you in foreseeable harm.
When you get to the "can I pet your dog" situation, the pool of liable defendants isn't so clear. On the other hand, airlines seem to encourage the "oh so cute" and so on, with onboard animals, even not having issue with them on passenger seats, petting them (those that should be in the carrier the entire flight), and so on ... this has got to stop. I write this with a big pouty dog lying on the floor right next to me. He's never been on a plane. He doesn't belong on one.
#18
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: sometimes, strangely, I find myself at home
Programs: I need to do better in managing my affiliations. Oops, I overshot the runway for status next year.
Posts: 648
...As I recall a woman on an EZE/USA flight telling another passenger essentially how she games the system (while fawning over the "cute dog") so that she can travel everywhere with her dog.
While the airline is in a "no win" situation, the airline is also a proper defendant. Speaking generally, if you must get to Gate 100 to get to your flight on ABC Airlines, and "service animals" are permitted on your route to Gate 100, and a "service animal" attacks on your route to Gate 100, and you really had no other access to Gate 100, and it is known that the moniker "service animal" includes untrained bogus "service" animals, there's no question that the airline put you in foreseeable harm.
When you get to the "can I pet your dog" situation, the pool of liable defendants isn't so clear. On the other hand, airlines seem to encourage the "oh so cute" and so on, with onboard animals, even not having issue with them on passenger seats, petting them (those that should be in the carrier the entire flight), and so on ... this has got to stop. I write this with a big pouty dog lying on the floor right next to me. He's never been on a plane. He doesn't belong on one.
While the airline is in a "no win" situation, the airline is also a proper defendant. Speaking generally, if you must get to Gate 100 to get to your flight on ABC Airlines, and "service animals" are permitted on your route to Gate 100, and a "service animal" attacks on your route to Gate 100, and you really had no other access to Gate 100, and it is known that the moniker "service animal" includes untrained bogus "service" animals, there's no question that the airline put you in foreseeable harm.
When you get to the "can I pet your dog" situation, the pool of liable defendants isn't so clear. On the other hand, airlines seem to encourage the "oh so cute" and so on, with onboard animals, even not having issue with them on passenger seats, petting them (those that should be in the carrier the entire flight), and so on ... this has got to stop. I write this with a big pouty dog lying on the floor right next to me. He's never been on a plane. He doesn't belong on one.
Do airlines really have that much control over who and what is in the gate area? If not, I am only feeling one proper defendant, the owner. It seems the other defendants are more opportunistic targets.
#19
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 31
.:eating popcorn as I read thru this thread:.
First of all: ESA's are getting way out of hand (what this thread should be about). The only animal that should be on a plane is a true, professionally trained, service animal.
Second: Animal owners (regardless of breed) know if their pet is aggressive or not. Aggressive animals should not be in public spaces, again, regardless of breed.
Third: Ignorance is high in this thread. I don't lump animals by breed (or people for color of their skin) into one category. I hate to see how most of you react when strangers walk past you.
The fact is "Emotional Support Animal Attacks a 5-Year-Old Girl at PDX" ... It happened to be a pit bull, would your feelings be the same if it was a mousey, furry little monster that leaped from someones Louis Vuitton pet carrier and bit a little girl?
First of all: ESA's are getting way out of hand (what this thread should be about). The only animal that should be on a plane is a true, professionally trained, service animal.
Second: Animal owners (regardless of breed) know if their pet is aggressive or not. Aggressive animals should not be in public spaces, again, regardless of breed.
Third: Ignorance is high in this thread. I don't lump animals by breed (or people for color of their skin) into one category. I hate to see how most of you react when strangers walk past you.
The fact is "Emotional Support Animal Attacks a 5-Year-Old Girl at PDX" ... It happened to be a pit bull, would your feelings be the same if it was a mousey, furry little monster that leaped from someones Louis Vuitton pet carrier and bit a little girl?
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,506
Just because a party isn't primarily responsible doesn't mean it is not responsible. This is why we have concepts such as joint and several liability, counterclaims, and when insurance is involved, subrogation claims.
#22
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Between SFO and STS
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold, United Serf, Delta Gold
Posts: 731
Care to read some peer reviewed literature, then??
And, here's some more interesting info on dog bites: https://www.westword.com/news/the-po...bulls-10211207
#1 biter in most of those municipalities is Labrador Retriever. As more municipalities ban breeds, it becomes apparent that training BY THE HUMANS (or the lack thereof) is often the root cause of dog bites. And, yes, pit bull type breeds are over-represented in fatalities, but NOT in bites.
Ultimately, as this is the Alaska Airlines forum, I would say that AS diligently analyzed the situation and came up with a fair prerequisite process for qualifying a dog as an ESA:
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/tr...upport-animals
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/tr...=nav:info-pets
And as it applies to the sad situation that happened in PDX a little over a year ago: the new regulations/forms make it pretty clear that the onus on the owner and not AS.
#23
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SEA
Programs: AS MVPG & BoardRoom
Posts: 289
Perhaps airlines will consider a requirement that pets be muzzled.
The dog owner should be primarily responsible for this incident; however, my guess is the airline has far deeper pockets and offers a much higher payout.
As a parent, I do not allow my children to approach unknown animals and I position myself as a buffer between them in these circumstances.
Had this happened to my daughter, that pit bull would have the same fate as the recent mountain lion attack in CO.
The dog owner should be primarily responsible for this incident; however, my guess is the airline has far deeper pockets and offers a much higher payout.
As a parent, I do not allow my children to approach unknown animals and I position myself as a buffer between them in these circumstances.
Had this happened to my daughter, that pit bull would have the same fate as the recent mountain lion attack in CO.
#24
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Programs: UA
Posts: 444
<a href="https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx">https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx</a><br />Care to read some peer reviewed literature, then??<br /><img src="https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.flyertalk.com-vbulletin/474x600/dog_breedsd_9d070b0c24f317ff8464996511902ffa903d97 fb.png"/><br />And, here's some more interesting info on dog bites: <a href="https://www.westword.com/news/the-popular-dog-breeds-most-likely-to-bite-you-and-theyre-not-pit-bulls-10211207">https://www.westword.com/news/the-popular-dog-breeds-most-likely-to-bite-you-and-theyre-not-pit-bulls-10211207</a><br /><a href="https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1">#1 </a> biter in most of those municipalities is Labrador Retriever. As more municipalities ban breeds, it becomes apparent that training BY THE HUMANS (or the lack thereof) is often the root cause of dog bites. And, yes, pit bull type breeds are over-represented in fatalities, but NOT in bites.<br /><br /><em>You do realize that the statistics from the Westworld article with labs as <a href="https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1">#1 </a> is from a region that had a pit bull ban until 2018 -- Ferrets are banned in NYC so I imagine that we have a lower amount of ferret bites than places where they are allowed.</em><br /><br />Ultimately, as this is the Alaska Airlines forum, I would say that AS diligently analyzed the situation and came up with a fair prerequisite process for qualifying a dog as an ESA:<br /><a href="https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/accessible-services/specialservices-support-animals">https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/accessible-services/specialservices-support-animals</a><br /><a href="https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/pets-traveling-with-pets?lid=nav:info-pets">https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/pets-traveling-with-pets?lid=nav:info-pets</a><br /><br />And as it applies to the sad situation that happened in PDX a little over a year ago: the new regulations/forms make it pretty clear that the onus on the owner and not AS.
Last edited by arttravel; Mar 1, 2019 at 12:16 pm
#25
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Programs: ʙᴏɴᴠo̱ʏ Au, IHG Au, HH Dia, Nexus, Pilot FlyingJ Preferred
Posts: 5,336
AS tightened their emotional support animal policy last fall. The owner is supposed to submit the required paperwork (included a completed statement by a mental health professional) 48 hours prior to flight.
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/tr...upport-animals
ESA and service animals are often lumped together, but those are two seperate categories with different requirements for each.
https://www.alaskaair.com/content/tr...upport-animals
ESA and service animals are often lumped together, but those are two seperate categories with different requirements for each.
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,332
As more dogs are being taken by their owners to more places (not just airports and airplanes but also into hotels, restaurants in the USA, stores, public parks, special events other than those focused on dogs, etc.), one solution might be to criminalize having an aggressive dog that bites someone, just as it increasingly is a criminal offense to cause an accident because one had been texting while driving. Then there would be punishment even if the dog owner can't afford to pay as well as the deterrent effect.
It's interesting that some FAs are urging their employers to restrict dogs (pets and ESAs) on board, yet I've also seen FAs gushing over pets that are removed from their carriers for the entire flight or are being carried around the aircraft. I've even seen someone with a cabin dog get an upgrade on board into an empty business class pair of seats where the dog then was unrestrained. This was an EZE flight and the only explanation I know that's consistent with my observations is that the dog owner was an NRSA who could not be assigned a seat in business class because of an airline policy rule as there is no place to put a pet carrier (we know that storage in overhead bins is not a good idea and can be fatal for the animal) in the business class cabin. IMO if someone really "needs" an ESA, they probably shouldn't be working for an airline or in any other potentially high stress position. To me, it's ridiculous that nonrevs can bring animals (other than genuine service animals, including those helping veterans affected by PTSD) on board to annoy and possibly injure customers.
A good start would be to strictly enforce all existing rules and for airlines to make those rules as strong as possible without violating the ACCA. It would be better if airlines would focus part of their substantial lobbying effort on revising the ACCA so as to strictly limit ESAs to be trained and certified animals (so that they're really more like service animals) used in cases of PTSD and similar situations and to give airlines the right to refuse to permit other ESAs as well as pets to travel on scheduled commercial aircraft. If someone wants to bring a fake ESA, they can either set up a charter or fly private, and crew should have the right to refuse to work such flights.
It's interesting that some FAs are urging their employers to restrict dogs (pets and ESAs) on board, yet I've also seen FAs gushing over pets that are removed from their carriers for the entire flight or are being carried around the aircraft. I've even seen someone with a cabin dog get an upgrade on board into an empty business class pair of seats where the dog then was unrestrained. This was an EZE flight and the only explanation I know that's consistent with my observations is that the dog owner was an NRSA who could not be assigned a seat in business class because of an airline policy rule as there is no place to put a pet carrier (we know that storage in overhead bins is not a good idea and can be fatal for the animal) in the business class cabin. IMO if someone really "needs" an ESA, they probably shouldn't be working for an airline or in any other potentially high stress position. To me, it's ridiculous that nonrevs can bring animals (other than genuine service animals, including those helping veterans affected by PTSD) on board to annoy and possibly injure customers.
A good start would be to strictly enforce all existing rules and for airlines to make those rules as strong as possible without violating the ACCA. It would be better if airlines would focus part of their substantial lobbying effort on revising the ACCA so as to strictly limit ESAs to be trained and certified animals (so that they're really more like service animals) used in cases of PTSD and similar situations and to give airlines the right to refuse to permit other ESAs as well as pets to travel on scheduled commercial aircraft. If someone wants to bring a fake ESA, they can either set up a charter or fly private, and crew should have the right to refuse to work such flights.
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,506
As more dogs are being taken by their owners to more places (not just airports and airplanes but also into hotels, restaurants in the USA, stores, public parks, special events other than those focused on dogs, etc.), one solution might be to criminalize having an aggressive dog that bites someone, just as it increasingly is a criminal offense to cause an accident because one had been texting while driving. Then there would be punishment even if the dog owner can't afford to pay as well as the deterrent effect.
#28
Moderator: Alaska Mileage Plan
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,287
Since the discussion has moved away from AS, it's time to close.
You may follow and contribute to the more general discussion here: Emotional support animal’ mauls 5-year-old girl
You may follow and contribute to the more general discussion here: Emotional support animal’ mauls 5-year-old girl