Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Delta Air Lines | SkyMiles
Reload this Page >

Delta sued by passenger allegedly attacked by emotional support animal

Delta sued by passenger allegedly attacked by emotional support animal

Old May 29, 2019, 9:32 pm
  #16  
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: 100,342
Let's not blame the victim. A service dog, or an appropriately trained support dog, would not bite someone's face badly even if provoked except upon command or otherwise in extraordinary circumstances. These dogs are/should be trained not to react unless their owner is in danger.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old May 29, 2019, 9:41 pm
  #17  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,191
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
Let's not blame the victim. A service dog, or an appropriately trained support dog, would not bite someone's face badly even if provoked except upon command or otherwise in extraordinary circumstances. These dogs are/should be trained not to react unless their owner is in danger.
This is NOT about a service dog, come on.
ijgordon is offline  
Old May 29, 2019, 10:14 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Programs: UA
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by 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.
The news reports do not mention that the victim did anything to “provoke” the dog. I do not think being a little larger than normal is justification for a 50 pound emotional support dog to bite someone in the face— more than once. If the dog was so fearful of close contact with strangers then the dog was not fit to fly. The owner was in the middle seat in economy with a 50 lb dog. If the dog was not able to handle the stress of that situation the owner should not take the dog.

I have volunteered for years with animal rescues and there are many people that excuse bad behavior or game the ESA situation — as in multiple ESA animals... refuse to muzzle biting ESA dogs...

Someone I know volunteers for early socialization for lab puppies before the intensive training for seeing eye service dogs and exposing the puppies to crowds and noise is part of it.

i sat behind a German Shepherd service dog on a flight from London to Zurich in Swiss Economy and the plane was packed— and it was July so a lot of families in the airport and crowds. That was an amazing dog who focused only on the handler/owner and had impressive training and was not bothered by the noise or crowds. ... And did not bite anyone in the face.

Statman, strickerj and altabello like this.
arttravel is offline  
Old May 29, 2019, 11:28 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 969
From HuffPost:
Jackson’s lawyers are arguing the airline assigned the dog and owner to a middle seat, when Delta’s policy at the time indicated a dog of that size should have been secured on the cabin floor and given special seating accommodations.


How about keep the emotional-support animals (they are needed) but they have to meet the same standards (training, etc.) as a service dog? Sure there will costs for the owners, but it would be a lot less than any lawsuit. Plus the animals would be happier (what some people do with their "ESAs" is cruel).
muji, MSPeconomist, wrp96 and 5 others like this.
DragonSoul is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 12:52 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LAS
Programs: HH, UA
Posts: 24
my suggestion to the recipient of the bite- sue the doctor who certified the need for the emotional support.

Exactly! This is why many doctors do not sign off on emotional support animals. There is no requirement for training and as my kid’s doctor said many doctors got sued by people being bitten by such a dog. She even requires the service dog to have been trained and certified by a known company. Sadly many doctors will sign off on anything only to make money. The other of my kid’s doctor has even a poster with prices for each kind of letter and a letter for emotional support animal is $25. So there you go - you pay $25 and can get a dog in a plane for free.
muji likes this.
sk8er is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 2:04 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: BWI
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 165
I am not an attorney, but why not sue the owner?
Dalewood is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 2:14 am
  #22  
In memoriam
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Programs: DL 2MM, AA MM, DL Sky Club Life, AA Admirals Club Life, Hilton Gold Life
Posts: 1,732
Originally Posted by Dalewood
I am not an attorney, but why not sue the owner?
Because the owner would counter sue on the basis that the dog was provoked
WillBarrett_68 likes this.
Lomapaseo is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 2:47 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC/Northern NJ
Programs: 1K - UAL, Platinum DL, Marriott, Hilton, SPG
Posts: 1,815
Originally Posted by Dalewood
I am not an attorney, but why not sue the owner?
Deeper pockets via corporation. Note article indicates he is suing both Delta and the owner. Winning judgement in civil suit means much of nothing if the other party doesn't have funds or require to pay by the court (as it isn't criminal). Reminder, OJ Simpson lost civil suit to the Goldman's and don't believe he has transferred any funds to date.
HDQDD, wrp96, watersign and 2 others like this.
RooseveltL is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 6:38 am
  #24  
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: 100,342
Originally Posted by ijgordon
This is NOT about a service dog, come on.
Of course it wasn't a service dog, but my point is that a genuine ESA should be trained the same way. You shouldn't be allowed to just acquire any animal, claim that it's an ESA (fake credentials purchased by checking a few boxes on a website or even just a willing therapist or other medical provider), and take it everywhere with you unless you can prove that it's been trained to a high standard. A real service dog stays in its "assigned" place and doesn't react even if, for example, someone steps on its tail or paws.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 6:44 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,105
Originally Posted by Dalewood
I am not an attorney, but why not sue the owner?
Owner might not have any money to pay a claim even if plaintiff wins.
sydneyracquelle is online now  
Old May 30, 2019, 7:10 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Programs: DL DM 1.929MM, Hilton Lifetime Diamond, IHG Platinum, Avis CHM, Marriott Titanium (lifetime gold)
Posts: 7,850
Originally Posted by Dalewood
I am not an attorney, but why not sue the owner?
The owner is being sued along with Delta. It's in the linked article.
DiverDave is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 7:25 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Programs: SkyMiles, HHonors, Marriott
Posts: 129
I haven't seen it directly mentioned here, but the attack behind this lawsuit is one of the major reasons Delta last year overhauled their ESA policy. Carriers didn't want to deal with threats of lawsuits from people who were loudly trumpeting their "rights" with their ESAs, so they initially had fairly loose restrictions concerning the rules for what constitutes an ESA. The combination of people masquerading their pets as ESAs so they wouldn't have to pay the pet fee combined with a number of other "incidents" (many of which later required deep cabin cleaning - ew) got the airlines rethinking this approach, but this attack was the straw that broke the camel's back. When Delta rolled out the new, more restrictive regulations last year, this attack was specifically cited.

I don't know to what degree Delta will ultimately be held responsible. The airlines aren't fans of ESAs to begin with, but they're required by law to accommodate (even beyond what the ADA requires), and I imagine Delta's response will be that they were complying with federal law as broadly understood by the airline industry. They may also add that they were leaders in getting the legal interpretation changed as a direct result of these attacks.

Going from memory, here, I seem to recall there was ample evidence at the time (or, rather, in immediate retrospect) that the large dog was not, in fact, an ESA, but the owner played the ESA card so they wouldn't have to pay the pet fee or abide by pet restrictions.
wrp96 and strickerj like this.
reimero is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 7:57 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Home
Posts: 469
Anyone trying to bring aboard a 'non-human' on a plane should be asked to provide proof of liability insurance and waive their rights to counter sue.
(let there be debate on definition of non-human )

Your pet is the most gentle and caring one in the world?
sure! we agree! obtaining these documents shouldn't be a problem for you!
jeet is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 8:04 am
  #29  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,714
Originally Posted by 4sallypat
Delta is just the big pockets that injury lawyers love to include.
Originally Posted by flyerCO
...it's likely the case will be thrown out as DL was required to allow animal per federal law.
The fundamental question here is: who was responsible for controlling the environment where this happened? Delta, the dog owner, the federal government, the victim, the vet who certified the dog as a fake "support animal", or the dog itself?
  • The dog is the least responsible party. Dogs gonna dog.
  • The victim may have unconsciously provoked the dog but it's hard to argue he brought the attack on himself.
  • The vet was not certifying the dog's mental health or that it was incapable of unprovoked aggression.
  • Federal law does not require Delta to board unboxed, unscreened animals without fear or favor.
  • The owner is responsible for controlling the dog but is aboard the plane at the sole discretion of Delta.
  • Delta is finally responsible for maintaining a safe cabin environment, and is going to look pretty silly arguing otherwise when FAs deplane people for looking at them funny.
I think Delta has to eat it here, and if it leads to harsher rules against "support animals," fine.
IndyHoosier, strickerj and AA100k like this.
BearX220 is offline  
Old May 30, 2019, 8:17 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Programs: SkyMiles, HHonors, Marriott
Posts: 129
Originally Posted by BearX220
The fundamental question here is: who was responsible for controlling the environment where this happened? Delta, the dog owner, the federal government, the victim, the vet who certified the dog as a fake "support animal", or the dog itself?
  • The dog is the least responsible party.
  • The victim may have unconsciously provoked the dog but it's hard to argue he brought the attack on himself.
  • The vet was not certifying the dog's mental health or that it was incapable of unprovoked aggression.
  • Federal law does not require Delta to board unboxed, unscreened animals without fear of favor.
  • The owner is responsible for controlling the dog but is aboard the plane at the sole discretion of Delta.
  • Delta is finally responsible for maintaining a safe cabin environment, and is going to look pretty silly arguing otherwise when FAs deplane people for looking at them funny.
I think Delta has to eat it here, and if it leads to harsher rules against "support animals," fine.
Federal law DOES require special accommodation for service and support animals, but provides little guidance as to what constitutes a "support animal" beyond requiring a letter from a qualified mental health professional. Part of the problem was that airlines weren't requiring this letter at the time of booking or check-in. There was also no vetting of the animal as being capable of carrying out the role of an ESA. ESAs are completely unregulated; it's only as a result of this that airlines are requiring owners to self-certify that the animal can behave (and I'm guessing this self-certification includes language absolving the airline of any liability for the animal's misbehavior, as well as absorbing any costs associated for restoring the cabin to clean, working order.)
What's ultimately happened is that as a direct result of this incident, the airlines have tightened up the rules and made their own rules for ESAs, essentially telling the government that if they won't regulate the ESA issue, the airlines will. The other unfortunate reality is that this incident gave the airlines the leverage they needed to tighten up the rules: it's a lot easier to respond to what has happened than it is to speculate as to what might happen.

Delta will likely have to pay something, but I also don't see that holding up on appeal: they were following industry practice as it pertains to following federal regulations, and spearheaded efforts to improve industry practice as a result.
reimero is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.