gobluetwo

Or settled.

But yeah, echo chamber of "talk to a lawyer, don't post details on FT"

Madone59

Completely agree.

Also OP we seem to be missing some information because the actions as described would have had the man arrested on the ground. Was he? If he was you should consult a lawyer.

JBord

I'm still not sure I believe the OP's story. But if accurate, why would he have been arrested? The OP reports that he informed a FA, who took no action, including not notifying the captain. Without the captain radioing ahead to have police waiting, the person would have walked right off the plane and on his way. Sounds like the OP went to the police after getting off the plane as that was all he could do.

Again, it would be helpful if more details were provided. I think I'd be more interested in UA apologizing and agreeing to support the testimony against the passenger if possible than suing them though.

rufflesinc

FWIW a drunk driver killing someone usually isn't prosecuted as murder.

Coskigirl

I didn't say anything about driving. Driving is not the only way a drunk person can kill someone.

popoemt

Yes it is, it's called vehicular manslaughter.

spin88

This is entirely wrong. There is no doubt that the CFR is relevent to the standard of care, which is part of any claim against United which would be using a negligence theory. If the DOT fined UA, it would be the first, and last point you would make.

I'm not say there is or is not a case, or suggesting OP do anything, but the airline's obligations under the CFR is the heart of the entire issue.

rufflesinc

That's not murder. A quick look at wikipedia shows max 15 years for GA, max 30 years for LA. Both states will execute for murder.

goalie

TOPIC CHECK

Please remember the subject of this thread

goalie
UA Forum Co-Moderator

ani90

The problem lies with defining intoxication. Other than with a blood test it is not possible to define alcohol intoxication with sufficient robustness. Many people in the plane who have not consumed alcohol may well look intoxicated. Some people consume substances other than alcohol that mimick intoxication, some people are on medications, some people have baseline personality disorders, some people are just baseline loud or aggressive, some react poorly to being stuck in a tube. It is a bit a high bar to expect the FAs to reliably make this assessment in all cases, short of equipping them with a breathalyzer to use prior to serving drinks...


Agree but many people have been exonerated from crimes because they were under the influence of one substance or another - especially so if that was served to him by a third party. While the act of drinking may have been intentional what I am saying is the guy never intended to be rude or aggressive to the OP - it was a byproduct of another action. Personally I would let it go and hope the guy can seek help for his (presumed) drinking problem.

OP did not say sexual assault - he said sexually harassed.

JBord

Ok, good correction. Doesn't change my question. Again we don't know much of the story here. But agreeing to take $1000 voucher from UA feels a lot like a settlement (I know little to nothing about the law ), and I don't know that I'd take that if a spouse, friend, family member had been sexually harassed...just not sure if it really happened in this case.

notquiteaff

You are welcome to debate that with the FAA rule makers.

Unless you were the guy in question, I wonder how you know what the guy intended or not.

Alcohol is not an excuse or justification. Period. It may result in additional charges against others if they served when they shouldn't have (FA) or allowed him to board when they shouldn't have (GA), but it was the alleged offender who drank it.

sbm12

Not really.

Nothing in the CFR mandates compensation to be paid to the passenger when the CFR is violated. Which was my original point and remains 100% accurate.

garykung

+1 With the ADA, the chance of winning is practically none.

ani90

La critique est aisée, et l'art est difficile (to criticize is easy but the art is difficult).

The FAA may use inoxification as a categorical description, but for the flight attendant it is really not necessarily easy to determine. In retrospect we can all see he was probably drunk as per OP description but it may or may not have been evident at the time the FA served drinks. We do not know the class of travel and whether this was purchased as opposed to complimentare alcohol which can also be a factor in FA response to request for alcohol (and I know the FAA doesn't make distinctions etc etc).

By definition if he was drunk at time the events occured then the events could not have been intentional - either he was drunk (and incapacitated) or he wasnt (and thus competent and aware of actions) - we can't have it both ways.

That said the details of this case are sketchy and uncollaborated so our discussions are largely hypothetical. I agree alcohol is not an excuse or justification for bad behaviour, but alcoholism is a disease and people affected need society's help as much as criticism.