EsquireFlyer

Most of the Warsaw Convention governs liability for baggage, and I think the sections governing transportation of people act to limit the liability that can be imposed (cap the $$ damages) rather than bar all lawsuits brought under other laws.

UpstateNY

I'm not sure about that. There's a preemption provision (art. 24(1)), which states: "In the carriage of passengers and baggage, any action for damages, however founded, can only be brought subject to the conditions and limitations set out in this Convention . . .." The operative provision permitting lawsuits for personal injuries (art. 17) keys liability to an "accident" (the meaning of which has been frequently litigated), and states that the accident must have taken place on board the aircraft. The damage cap you mention is in art. 22, but that kicks in only if the plaintiff is able to show that her injuries were the result of (a) an accident (b) occurring on the aircraft. (If the allegation is that the over-service was the "accident," it may not matter that the damages she suffered at the hands of her husband occurred after they were off the plane.)

My point was that the plaintiff is not going to be able to bring a garden variety common-law tort action, on the grounds that UA has a duty to third parties arising out of its negligent service of alcohol to a passenger. It's all got to be channeled through the language of the Convention.

Usual disclaimers: This isn't legal advice, I'm a lawyer but not an aviation lawyer, blah blah.

mcgahat

True about service vs cocktails but that is usually only at dinner service at the beginning of the flight and I have never had a FA come around every 20 minutes for anything in any class of service much less wine after the dinner service is over.

This thing happened in 2006, obviously somebody is desperate in their life.

TravelManKen

How do you know that? These types of frivolous cases only result in responsible people being punished. Her problem is not with the airline, but with her husband. Are we to believe that this is not his normal behavior whenever he has a little something to drink? Are we to believe that his attack was not one of several in the past?

It doesn't matter how much alcohol you give most men, we're not going to smacking our wives. Unfortunately, she's married to a low-life wimp who gets off on hitting women (and possibly an alcohol problem). Whatever the case, this is not United's problem, and I'll be ticked if I start getting cut off with some new maximum 1-2 drink policy because of this loser.

6rugrats

Seems as if it would be quite difficult to prove how much alcohol was served to this person. Sounds as if they want to blame someone else for their stupid actions. If wife can blame the airline, she doesn't have to blame the jerk she married.

Also, this was two years ago. I'm not in law school or an attorney, but isn't there some time limit in which you must file?

aisleorwindow

Gotta respectfully disagree.

How do you know the FAs continued to serve him after he became visibly drunk? I'm sure they didn't. It's more likely that he was behaving normally while they were serving him.

Taking the side of a drunk wife-beater in this case seems like the very definition of frivolous to me.

andymell

He hit her in the C&I area? Since he hadn't entered the US yet, why didn't they just put him on the next flight back to Japan?

4444

where was the wife while he was being served? why did she not ask them to stop serving?

O Sora

Ayisha doesn't sound like a Japanese name, at least to me as a native Japanese speaker. This might be related to that.

Anyway, illegal activities there are punishable by US laws, aren't they?

UpstateNY

Two years is pretty typical for statutes of limitations in personal-injury cases, but I don't know for sure under Calif. law. If I'm right that the Warsaw Convention applies here and preempts state common-law claims (haven't heard back from LawSchoolFlyer), then it's definitely two years, under art. 29(1) of the Convention.

TMOliver

There's another side to this case, the criminal offense which forms a part of it.

California statutes are fairly strong when it comes to domestic violence/assault on a spouse, and IIRC, the abused wife is not required to file charges (which was done by a local LEA, disorderly conduct and battery). By filing the suit in Florida, the couple are admitting that the husband clearly and openly commited either a serious misdemeanor or perhaps a felony while "on the ground" at SFO, which is hardly "extra-territorial" to the State of California. Were I UA (with witnesses and maybe access to video of the incident), I'd be appearing at the DA's office in San Francisco calling for charges against the "batterer" to be pursued (and the issuance of a warrant for his extradition to CA, if the crime of which he is charged is a felony).

For attorneys here....Doesn't CA have a statute that a perp may not profit from the "proceeds" of books (or lawsuits) arising from the crime committed?

Danski

Generally speaking, if law enforcement was aware of the incident (and it sounds like they were), the DA's office would have up to one year to file misdemeanor criminal charges (and up to three years to file felony charges).

Edited to add: I just reread the OP, and it looks like the local DA's office actually did file charges at the time.

danielb6752

I wholeheartedly agree, shame on these two for not knowing when to say when, and for ruining it for the rest of us who can get sloshed and not hit their wife in the customs area!

cblaisd

Indeed.

SJCFlyerLG

Of course, the onus may be on the pax to prove that the FA's knowingly served the man when he was obviously drunk. It may be difficult to judge the state of intoxication of someone that is sitting in an airplane seat, which is a rather restricted space. Unless the man was engaging in activities that clearly showed that he was intoxicated, it will be tough to prove.