inet32

Recently there was a news story about a passenger who urinated on a fellow passenger (https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/p...-over-him.html) and the comments section was rather unsympathetic to the victim.

So this made me curious about what, if any, legal or contractual obligations airlines have regarding passengers' interactions. In most jurisdictions urinating on a person is regarded as a form of assault, so then does an airline's legal immunity extend to other forms of assault. too? For example, over the years there have been various news reports of passengers punching other passengers, and of women being sexually harassed or assaulted by male seatmates.

So in legal or contractual terms is the airline regarded as an un-involved third-party and the dispute is purely between the pax in question? If a passenger wanted to bring a legal action against his or her assailant is the airline obligated to provide address and identity information about the other passenger so such a lawsuit or charges can be brought? I travel internationally quite often so my seatmates may often be from other countries or continents than me. If such an event occurs in international airspace whose laws or jurisdictions apply?

FirstInFlight

You are asking the right questions. It's not clear how this will play out but the passenger in this case has sued United asserting a variety of theories - negligence, emotional distress etc. There will be an argument that an airline owes a duty to its invitee. There will also be a question as to whether it is negligence to allow an intoxicated person to board. On the other hand the intentional actions of another (assuming they are found to be intentional) may serve to insulate UA. It promises to be an interesting case. And I think that UA refused to identify the other passenger prior to suit being filled - but clearly they know who he was and will be forced to identify him now that suit has been filed.

inet32

Thank you, but I'm really asking broader questions. There have been plenty of cases over the years of altercations and assaults between passengers, so I assume by now that there must be some legal precedent or case law, and I'm hoping one of the experienced denizens of this forum might know what it is. How have confrontations between passengers been handled in the past? Also, is the flight captain's authority similar to the captain of a ship? Also, there must either be conventions or agreements citing whose laws apply. On a domestic flight is it the laws of the state you're flying over or the state the plane took off from, or what? What about an international flight? I'm really not just asking about this incident.

Adam1222

The facts matter, so really hard to generalize. And few of these cases would go to the point where there is a legal precedent.
As for the laws that govern, that's really too complicated a question to be answered in a forum like this. In the US, whether state common law claims are preempted will really depend on what you're alleging. Whether you have a state common law claim to start depends on whether there's an argument the airline had an obligation to do more than what it did and could have stopped the action. (Again, which depends on the facts, a lot more than which states negligence law applies.) International conventions specify the law that governs midflight.

sonofzeus

You're asking for a quick course in a complex area of jurisprudence.

Idle curiosity?
Injured friend/relative?

inet32

Frequent Flyer.

Just as I try to know what laws, conventions, tariffs, and contracts I'm affected by regarding lost luggage, delayed flights, overbooking, visa requirements, carry-on limitations, etc, I want to understand this area as well, especially since altercations between passengers seem to be common. (see the "Incidents" section of flyertalk) I know what to do and what to expect and what my rights are if I'm bumped or have my flight cancelled or my luggage is lost but I have no idea what to do if a seatmate hits or pees on me.

And while I agree that it's a complex area of jurisprudence, EVERYTHING is a complex area of jurisprudence. Traffic accidents, human-resources, real-estate, etc. In all of the above there are always some general principles, guidelines, and precedents that it could help to be aware of and I don't see why this topic should be any different. I do lots of photography, including commercial photography, and the laws about what you can shoot, what you need signed releases for, copyright law, etc, are incredibly complex, especially internationally, but having a general understanding has helped me immensely over the years.

Adam1222

I would not be able to explain how copyright law works in a post on a discussion forum either. If you'd like to be informed, spend some time doing research

Thunderroad

As a former bartender, non-practicing lawyer and loyal FT member who accordingly feels no compunction about offering uninformed opinions, I'll offer a few guesses about a few factors that might affect airlines' liability in such situations:

1. Did the airline allow boarding by a passenger who (usually due to inebriation) was acting disruptive or fail to remove the obviously disruptive passenger before take-off?
2. Probably even more important, did an FA provide the alcohol that helped make a passenger disruptive or that arguably intensified the passenger's pre-boarding inebriation?
3. Did the FA take no or inadequate action after being informed of a passenger's disruptive conduct?

Again, these are just guesses, and pretty uninformed ones at that.

84fiero

The captain (or pilot-in-command) of an aircraft generally has the authority to take any reasonable action (or direct crewmembers) to ensure the safety of the aircraft, including restraining a passenger, refusing to board the passenger, or removing the passenger from the aircraft. In that regard it's similar to a ship's captain.

Read up on the Tokyo Convention, a treaty signed by most countries which covers the authority of the captain and crew to take necessary actions when someone on board has committed (or is reasonably believed to be about to commit) a criminal offense or act that jeopardizes the safety of the aircraft, on international flights. It also addresses jurisdiction for offenses on board.

For domestic travel, most countries have aviation regulations addressing authority of the pilot in command for the operation and safety of the aircraft and they tend to be similar to the Tokyo Convention principles. The Federal Aviation Regulations are the governing regs in the US. Other laws may apply depending on the circumstances of course.

beckoa

Please follow this discussion in TravelBuzz.

~beckoa, co-moderator Information Desk