PVDProf

The $1K sounds more like a customer service gesture than an admission of responsibility. If you want a somewhat larger customer service gesture, then make a customer service type statement that avoids indicating they were responsible for causing the incident "This really bothered and inconvenienced us and we're not happy with the way the FAs handled it. Could you give us a $1500 voucher?"

If you want a settlement that is based on liability, then you should talk to a lawyer rather than FT. As others have mentioned here, in that environment, the passenger may have more responsibility than UA, that UA does have may not be collectable by you.

notquiteaff

Seems like a pretty large number; I somehow doubt that UA hands $1000 certs out in response to a simple complaint to customer service.

ExtonUS

All this 'get a lawyer talk'....are people talking about against UA or the guy? I can see suing the guy if you really want to try, but seriously fail to see suing an airline over the behavior of a passenger.

Loren Pechtel

Yeah. This is a police matter, not a UA matter.

SS255

The OP indicated spending time with the police, which leads me to believe that either the OP filed a police report, or UA had the police meet the plane at the gate.

If the OP has given a statement to the police, my recommendation would be to let the justice system do its thing. Accept the compensation from UA and move on, as far as the UA customer service matter is concerned.

SFO_UGS

As someone previously pointed out: No, NO, NO!

This is precisely way we can't convict drunk drivers in this country: "It's OK to be inebriated and it's not your fault if you cause harm/discomfort to anyone else because it wasn't deliberate." Of course it was deliberate/intentional. HE/SHE decided to have one to many and visit his/her uncontrollable behavior on to someone else.

Another reason: most people drink; most get tipsy/inebriated at some point in their lives and some drive; and some are unlucky. But, since most people drink and they, themselves, have been in the same situation, it was just bad luck s/he careened into another car/harassed a passenger/belligerent with the FA/GA. It's never the drunks fault. Because it wasn't deliberate.

God, I hate drunks. In my one experience, I told the guy sitting next to me on a flight: "You seem to be drunk" (which he agreed that he may have had one too many in the airport bar). "Do not talk to me, don't look my way; pretend there's a wall between us." End of discussion. I never heard from him, again.

As point of full disclosure: No, I do not drink (not even beer); and no, I have never been drunk. Boring life? I'm OK with that.

gobluetwo

Could be either one or both. I don't know the mind of the OP, but wouldn't be surprised if he is exploring 1) suing the guy in civil court if criminal charges are not levied (or even if they are) and 2) suing United for facilitating this guy's behavior by allegedly over-serving him in-flight, and then not doing enough to stop it.

ehallison

This is really off topic to the OP, but...by "this country" do you mean the US? I'm a US citizen, and have served on 2 juries in 2 different states which convicted for DUI. So I disagree with the bolded part of your statement, although a quick google search doesn't give me any data so my experience is anecdotal.

I do agree with the rest of your paragraph, which is why I vote to convict. ^

enviroian

What is the legal definition of sexual harassment?

garykung

The legal definition of sexual harassment is associated with workplace.

In other word, no definition.

dcpdxtrans

If you are serious about pursuing this further, not only should you not post anything on FT, you should also not engage in any private email with anyone on FT (or anywhere else) unless that person is a lawyer who is providing you with services reasonably related to your matter.

weero

Yes of course that works here. If the state of the pax makes it impossible to prove intent, the OP is well served with what UA offered upfront.

raehl311

Killing people isn't usually prosecuted as murder.

And some people can be really drunk and no one can tell...

No, but not fulfilling standard practices can be negligence, and negligence that causes harm can be a cause for compensation.

We don't need it both ways, because whether it was intentional or not, he's still RESPONSIBLE.

If you can't control your behavior because you're drunk, and you get drunk before getting on an airplane, then you're responsible for what you do when you're drunk.

You sue the airline for failing to fulfill their responsibility to keep a hazardous passenger off the plane.

Repeated, unwanted attention of a sexual nature. As mentioned before, really only legally defined in the workplace.

On a single encounter with a stranger, you would be asking if there was an assault or sexual assault or general harassment.

raehl311

Huh? This makes no sense.

According to OP, UA allowed a drunk passenger on the plane or over-served a passenger and then did not, according to OP, satisfactorily deal with the situation. The intent of the passenger is irrelevant with regards to appropriate compensation from UA.

With regards to the passenger, the passenger allowed himself to become drunk on an airplane, and once you allow yourself to become drunk, you're responsible for what you do in that state.

cjermain

I'm gonna disagree with the posters who think that the OP should just move on. When the drunk offered to fight the OP, that could easily have met the legal definition of assault, at least here in Texas:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/PE.22.htm

Like most of us here, I'm no lawyer, but the "sexual harassment" the OP describes could also have been assault, depending upon what threats were made and whether there was physical contact. Presumably, that is why the OP spent time with the police; he is attempting to have charges filed against the other passenger.

We don't know much of anything in the way of details. It might be that UA did everything by the book and could never have predicted the outcome. Then no one would blame UA. But if two people were assaulted on a UA flight by a drunk who was served many drinks by UA---especially if UA was altered to the situation before the assaults occurred and declined to do anything and yet kept serving, perhaps there is liability. I believe that liability is incurred when one takes action that a reasonable person could have predicted would have resulted in the observed outcome, right? Seems like continuing to serve a drunk after being warned meets that definition. But again, I'm no lawyer.

To all those who are saying, "take the $1000 and run". Well, we just don't know how bad it was. Did the drunk actually try to put his hands on the OP's wife and then try to fight him after being served by UA, despite pleas from the OP to stop? That could have been a horrible, life-altering experience, especially for the OP's wife. Seems like $1000 to go away is a tiny token in such a situation.

The advice I do agree with: don't post anything else here. This might be nothing, and perhaps $1000 is very generous. But who knows? If it really was bad and the OP believes that UA has liability, it's time to talk to a lawyer.