United sued for hard landing?

Reply

Old May 29, 17, 12:25 pm
  #61  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,628
It seems to me that maybe it was a redeye and the woman was sound asleep when it landed? FA probably did not do the cabin safety check thoroughly and the woman's seatbelt was not buckled?

Safety checks have become very sloppy. I have even been on a night flight where they did not even turn on the lights to do it.
username is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 17, 10:34 am
  #62  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 4,201
Originally Posted by garykung View Post
...
FWIW - taken the report as true, UA is obligated to compensate regardless of faults.

...
(red is mine) oh, my! As others have stated, this is wrong.

Originally Posted by garykung View Post
More like - every successful landing is a good landing.

Originally Posted by LondonElite View Post
Any landing you walk away from is a good landing.

Originally Posted by trooper View Post
Any landing after which you can use the aircraft again is a great one!

Originally Posted by EricH View Post
I really wish United would offer these dolts a choice between two settlement offers: 1) go away, or 2) a lifetime ban from us and this list of other airlines that are also tired of people like you.
I like it. In fact, cover UA's costs to day or you get a lifetime ban on UA.
Global321 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 17, 12:26 pm
  #63  
BJM
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Programs: UA
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by garykung View Post
It is exactly the case. Without linking this incident to a contract, the statute of limitation (personal injury) runs out in 2 years. 4 years if linked as a contractual obligation.
The Contract of Carriage??
BJM is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 17, 3:15 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: CoUniHound 1K, AA EXP 1MM, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Premier
Posts: 1,039
$85K isn't a whole lot of money when the medical industry is involved. The women could very well have spent the last 2 years in insurance limbo unable to get their bills paid. Looks to me like they're just trying to get their bills paid, not retire to a tropical island.
Catbert10 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 17, 3:27 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.8MM, Marriott PLT, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by Global321 View Post
(red is mine) oh, my! As others have stated, this is wrong.
Then you should do a research on the common carrier liability.

You will be surprised.

Originally Posted by BJM View Post
The Contract of Carriage??
Not exactly. But the ticket itself.

CoC governs the condition. But the actual ticket is what established the contractual relationship.
garykung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 17, 3:42 pm
  #66  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: AA, UA lowly commoner
Posts: 662
She's suing for negligence, not breach of contract. She wants tort remedies, not contract remedies. So wouldn't it be the negligence statute of limitations that applies, regardless of the existence of a contract?
Giggleswick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 17, 5:14 pm
  #67  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 4,201
Originally Posted by garykung View Post
Then you should do a research on the common carrier liability.

You will be surprised.
You stated, "UA is obligated to compensate regardless of faults". That statement is incorrect.

UA must be found at fault. The bar is low - any fault could result in full responsibility - but UA must be found at fault.

If these ladies...
  1. had pre-existing degenerative conditions, or
  2. were told by doctor to not fly, or
  3. are making the cause of the injury up, or
  4. _________________ (fill in the blank)

...maybe the airline is not at fault.

The court finds fault first. Liability second.
Global321 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 17, 5:14 pm
  #68  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.8MM, Marriott PLT, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by Giggleswick View Post
So wouldn't it be the negligence statute of limitations that applies, regardless of the existence of a contract?
Negligence is a broad term that can virtually apply in many different legal area, both civil and criminal. So the word negligence does not determine statute of limitations.

In this case, the lawyer is suing as a personal injury, alleging UA was negligent. So the statute of limitations for PI applies. In the alternative, the lawyer can also as a contract breach and negligence based on the ticket purchased.

However - since the recovery amount will be virtually the same under both theories, suing as a contract breach is redundant.
garykung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 17, 7:05 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: AA, UA lowly commoner
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by garykung View Post
However - since the recovery amount will be virtually the same under both theories, suing as a contract breach is redundant.
But no pain and suffering for a contract claim, right?

Also, though I wasn't clear, I did mean the applicable negligence statute of limitations would apply, not that there was one for all negligence claims. At any rate, it wouldn't be a breach of contract statute of limitations if suing for PI.
Giggleswick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 17, 5:25 am
  #70  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.8MM, Marriott PLT, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by Giggleswick View Post
But no pain and suffering for a contract claim, right?
No. Pain and suffering is available for a contract claim, usually when the plaintiff is a natural person.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; May 31, 17 at 11:38 am Reason: Unneeded personal comment removed
garykung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 17, 6:58 am
  #71  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Programs: Due to current work travel patterns just A-List with WN - and that's enough!
Posts: 8,710
Originally Posted by garykung View Post
Common Carrier Strict Liability

Under this theory - UA is liable regardless of faults, as soon as its hard landing resulted the injury claimed.

The problem is - the plaintiff has to claim the nexus between UA's hard landing and the claimed disability.
That is a pretty big "problem" and seems to be different from what you were suggesting earlier - that the passengers made a claim, so now UA must pay, end of story.

Also, it is common carrier liability, not common carrier strict liability. The plaintiff would still have to prove (at least) negligence.
Bear96 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 17, 7:00 am
  #72  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Programs: Due to current work travel patterns just A-List with WN - and that's enough!
Posts: 8,710
Originally Posted by TennisNoob View Post
IMO the guy used his rudder left and right at least 8 times. That's horrible.

You should be able to control the wind without using your rudder left and right that many times.


What if is was, like, really windy?

Should the pilot have refused to correct things with the rudder and risked losing control of the plane?
Bear96 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 17, 2:42 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.8MM, Marriott PLT, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by Bear96 View Post
That is a pretty big "problem" and seems to be different from what you were suggesting earlier - that the passengers made a claim, so now UA must pay, end of story.
I did not say that. This was what I have said exactly:

Originally Posted by garykung View Post
The only precedent available were those from, sadly, a major air incident.

FWIW - taken the report as true, UA is obligated to compensate regardless of faults.

So the key is if the hard landing caused both women permanently disabled or not.
UA can still deny the claim if it is bogus.

Originally Posted by Bear96 View Post
Also, it is common carrier liability, not common carrier strict liability. The plaintiff would still have to prove (at least) negligence.
I could be wrong on this one - They are interchangeable terms that means the same thing.

But under the doctrine of strict liability, no finding of fault is required.
garykung is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread