Knee Defender causes Argument, Diversion
 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/11506312

According to the story...

UA1462 Newark to Denver flight diverted to Chicago after heated argument. The lady in front threw water over the gentleman behind, who had used a Knee Defender and disregarded FA instruction to remove it.

Also says neither passenger arrested, which if the other details are accurate, I really hope is not the case.

Using the Knee Defender is completely illegal.

When I buy a ticket for a specific class of service and that class includes a seat that reclines it is might right to recline it. If you cannot accept the fact that the person in front of you wants to be comfortable, buy a ticket in a different class of service where you don't have to worry about it.

Please cite the USC and precedent to support bolded assertion.

Knee Defender causes Argument, Diversion
 

Using it is not illegal, however not following the instructions of a flight attendant is against the law. Secondly recline is not included in the ticket. The ticket is a contract to get you from one point to another point in safe and timely manner, nowhere in the contract is there an article on recline.

It isn't illegal but most airlines ban its use. The failure to follow the instructions of the flight attendant is the part that could get him in trouble. Although the lady who tossed the water could have problems of her own.

I misunderstood what the Knee Defender is. My bad.

I think we've had this conversation before, noting that it can be illegal to do something not contained in the United States Code.

As this is not a legal forum, I understand the poster to mean "prohibited", not subject to criminal penalty under federal law. So it could be a violation of the contract or carriage, or airline policy.

Finally, since you appear to be looking for an argument, there are nonfrivolous arguments that it constitutes an intentional interference with contractual rights, and/or trespass to chattel.

I'm just a schlub; I'm not a fancy pants lawyer.

1. RE the bolded language, doesn't the 9th Amendment guarantee us to rights not specified unless prohibited?
2. RE the blue language, does varying from airline policy make something "completely illegal"?
2. Is this your way of saying that it's not "completely illegal"? Doesn't "completely" make it unequivocally illegal? Thus, certain rare predecents would be rendered irrelevant given that qualifier?

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

"Granted, an evacuation at altitude is not likely"

Without a parachute, I will not be (voluntarily) evacuating at altitude.

While your response does not address my premise that safety of flight comes first, I am wrong because I thought the device was a wedge that you shove into the hinge area. TGR has corrected me. It blocks the tray into the down position so it negatively affects safety of flight regardless of the speed or altitude of the aircraft.

I replied to you on this in the other thread linked above, but the Knee Defender prevents recline at the cost of keeping the tray table down; not conducive to an easy evacuation.

My bad...I thought this was a wedge that didn't affect the tray table.

1. No. Not even close. (The Ninth Amendment says that just because something isnt in Amendments 1-8 doesn't mean it's not a right. It doesn't say it is a right either. In other words, silence means nothing.)
2. Colloquially, yes.
3. Are you suggesting that one is either a schlub or a fancy pants lawyer? I am a lawyer, and I am not wearing ANY pants.

Getting back on topic, if you'd like to word police or learn about the law, there are several other places for you to do so.

I wouldn't have used the term "completely illegal", but I wouldn't have felt the compulsion to attack the person who said it.
I do think their use is rude, violates norms of decency and travel, and an infringement on your fellow passengers' purchased rights.

I think you proved my point...thanks.

I'm struggling with what you wrote, "...it can be illegal to do something not contained in the United States Code." I took that to mean that there are prohibited acts that are not enumerated in statute or regulation. I cited the 9th Amendment which does deal more with rights. I think we agree that the 9th Amendment was not the best reference. Can you help me understand what you meant by what I quoted above?


Even as a lowly "no pants" lawyer, you should know that words count. I was objecting to the words chosen so a "colloquially" it's close enough argument is a fail.

Maybe you should divorce yourself from your feelings about something like the knee defender before responding in the thread like this. Your feelings definitely affected your ability to think here. The knee defender is not "completely illegal." It is a joke to say that.