IADCAflyer

https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...=.143d154052c4

An attack on a plane by a fellow passenger’s emotional-support dog left Marlin Jackson needing 28 stitches, according to a negligence lawsuit filed Friday against Delta Air Lines and the dog’s owner. In the suit, Jackson claims he bled so badly that a row of seats later had to be removed from the plane.

Jackson had just taken his window seat in the 31st row for a June 2017 flight from Atlanta to San Diego when the dog, sitting on the lap of the passenger next to him, lunged for his face, pinning him against the window of the plane so he couldn’t escape, the lawsuit alleges.

ATOBTTR

exwannabe

Pinned to window by a lap dog?

OK, I have a problem with these things. If one wanted to attack me, it might well inflict some wounds. But that son of a ..... would have been flying across the cabin with a broken neck.

Size matters.

IADCAflyer

50 pound lap dog.....

acrophobia

exwannabe

That is certainly a bigger dog than I pictured as one of these typical lap dogs. So agreed.

FlyerWx

That size of dog shouldn't even have been on someone's lap on a plane.

I'm going to withhold OMNI-like comments, but I am glad Delta has continued to enact more stringent regulations for cabin animals. This is ridiculous.

4sallypat

Delta is just the big pockets that injury lawyers love to include.
But that dog is way too big to be on a lap and be safe.
It's too bad the people can easily call their pet as "emotional support" animals and squash any restrictions that the majority have to abide by.
Airlines should only allow certified SERVICE ANIMALS.

The military vet should have purchased another seat for the dog - it was probably uncomfortable in an enclosed cabin with lots of strangers surrounding it.

After all, a dog is an animal with a primitive brainstem which hides territoriality then fight first and flee later.

eastindywalrus

Good. Shame it has to be Delta, but until deep pockets like Delta keep getting sued over incidents like this, no organization whose opinion (and lobbying dollars) matters is going to push back against the government's ridiculous stance toward emotional support animals. The average citizen just does not have enough influence in these matters - it needs to come from large corporations like Delta.

123run

Is there a reason why airlines do not require muzzles on all dogs in the cabin? It sounds like a no-brainer to me.

flyerCO

Anyone can sue. However it's likely the case will be thrown out as DL was required to allow animal per federal law. Just like state court cases are being thrown out against pharmaceutical companies for failing to warn patients. This due to fact federal law says they can't. Same principal here, as federal government is directing what must be done.

MSPeconomist

jdrtravel

I think there is a grey area here. DL is certainly not required to allow all animals on board. Per the DOT:

Airlines may exclude animals that:

• Are too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin;
• Pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others;
• Cause a significant disruption of cabin service; or
• Are prohibited from entering a foreign country.

(https://www.transportation.gov/indiv...upport-animals)

I don't know the details of this but it seems like airlines could be more strictly enforcing some of these.

Gynob001

Transpacificflyer

Fortunately, the courts and society in the civilized world have adopted the position that a disability due to a mental illness should not be treated any differently from that of a disability due to a physical injury or illness. Diabetics can sometimes act "crazy", so too can people on some medications that have nothing to do with mental illness. Elderly people can sometimes become confused and lash out. And on and on it goes.
I suppose we could have avoided all this if the fellow had not been deployed to a war zone in service of his country. Then the plaintiff would not have had to sit next to an injured veteran.

Please keep in mind that the claims of the plaintiff are allegations only and they have yet to be substantiated in fact. It is common practice for the worst possible scenario to be alleged in the initial filing. This does not mean that the event occurred as described.
The plaintiff is what can be described as a person of size, or POS. It is quite possible that the gentleman from Alabama may have have done something to the animal. This too will need to be verified in court.