Couple sues United for overserving husband!
#91
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
So, if somehow that number was literally true (one refill every 20 minutes), and that the plaintiff isn't just lying to the court, would you then think that the case is non-frivolous?
I don't think that a UA FA would automatically refill someone's wine glass 20+ times one one flight, but I could see it happening if the guy kept asking for it.
The other big part is its not the wife suing for her damages due to the idiot husband but they want UA to pay his fees and lost wages due to his stupidity. So its not a simple third party getting injured by someone who they claim was over served.
#92
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
But the wife is suing for her own damages. They also raise other claims relating to the husband's losses, which I think are much less convincing. But the wife is in fact suing for her injuries and suffering.
#93
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 350
Wait, what? Punitive damages go to the plaintiff (i.e., the victim), not to the government. How does that have anything to do with greedy legislators or military pillaging?
The system in which punitive damages go to the plaintiff is certainly open to some criticism (e.g., "why don't the punitive damages go to charity instead? why should this particular victim get them?"), but I fail to see how the government bribery criticism applies.
Unless you are referring to the taxes collected on punitive damages? If so, shouldn't your beef be with the "the greedy IRS" rather than "greedy state legislatures"?
The system in which punitive damages go to the plaintiff is certainly open to some criticism (e.g., "why don't the punitive damages go to charity instead? why should this particular victim get them?"), but I fail to see how the government bribery criticism applies.
Unless you are referring to the taxes collected on punitive damages? If so, shouldn't your beef be with the "the greedy IRS" rather than "greedy state legislatures"?
#94
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
And clients frequently deduct the attorney's contingency fee when filing their taxes, and get away with it (as a result of IRS non-enforcement)--although the deduction is not actually allowed by law, and all these clients could be in for an audit if the IRS decides to start cracking down.
(And I say that the client gets punitive damages "completely free" because, when awarded, they are awarded in addition to the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. And actual damages are awarded tax-free, although the client still has to pay the attorney either his contingency percentage or his hourly fee.)
And...even if the IRS is getting a cut...it still doesn't follow (as was originally asserted by the other poster) that punitive damage statutes were designed to bribe bribe greedy state legislatures.
Last edited by EsquireFlyer; Dec 19, 2008 at 1:21 pm
#95
Join Date: Jul 2008
Programs: new united nobody
Posts: 165
i think the man has a violence problem, not necessarily an alcohol problem.
alcohol can take away inhibitions, but does not cause someone to hit his wife.
very easy to blame someone else for his violent actions, in my opinion.
the fact that the wife is the plaintiff is not all that unusual - women in domestic violence situations often identify with the perpetrator.
alcohol can take away inhibitions, but does not cause someone to hit his wife.
very easy to blame someone else for his violent actions, in my opinion.
the fact that the wife is the plaintiff is not all that unusual - women in domestic violence situations often identify with the perpetrator.
#96
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Programs: UA Platinum MM; AA Gold; DL Silver; IHG Diamond Ambassador; Hilton Gold; Marriott Gold
Posts: 24,247
If her claims were sincere, her husband should be a named defendant. Instead, he too is a plaintiff (also represented by her attorney) and UA is the sole defendant being haled into court. Speaks volumes about the lawsuit to me.
#97
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
1. She sued in federal court, which she could not have done if she had named her husband as a defendant. That would have defeated diversity jurisdiction.
2. If she and her husband share property (e.g. joint bank and investment accounts), suing him is a waste of money. She would be paying her own recovery, and the lawyer would take a cut.
Last edited by EsquireFlyer; Dec 19, 2008 at 1:56 pm
#98
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: TYO / WAS / NYC
Programs: American Express got a hit man lookin' for me
Posts: 4,591
Speaks volumes? But...
1. She sued in federal court, which she could not have done if she had named her husband as a defendant. That would have defeated diversity jurisdiction.
2. If she and her husband share property (e.g. joint bank and investment accounts), suing him is a waste of money. She would be paying her own recovery, and the lawyer would take a cut.
1. She sued in federal court, which she could not have done if she had named her husband as a defendant. That would have defeated diversity jurisdiction.
2. If she and her husband share property (e.g. joint bank and investment accounts), suing him is a waste of money. She would be paying her own recovery, and the lawyer would take a cut.
Perhaps they are already in the process of being divorced in Japan and are litigating their claims against each other in that context. Perhaps they have already signed a settlement between each other and just want to see if they can get United to chip in. I'm sure there is some key twist which we're all missing.
#99
Join Date: May 2001
Location: RNO, NV, USA.
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 5,038
I was interested to note that this incident occurred 2 years ago, and it seems Mrs. Shimamoto remains married to her abusive husband. "he struck his wife, Ayisha, six times, injuring her face..." Of course in their minds this is all United Airlines' fault. If this goes to trial, it would be interesting to see how a jury would assess these facts.
#100
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Programs: UA Platinum MM; AA Gold; DL Silver; IHG Diamond Ambassador; Hilton Gold; Marriott Gold
Posts: 24,247
2. If she and her husband share property (e.g. joint bank and investment accounts), suing him is a waste of money. She would be paying her own recovery, and the lawyer would take a cut.
#101
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oregon
Programs: AA EXP, AS 75K, UA 1MM Gold, HH Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Plat, National EE, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,993
I would like to make it known to the attorneys involved that I am willing to provide expert testimony that there is no way he could have received that level of service on a UA aircraft
#102
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,253
Even more I find it important that these people face the iron hand of the law to its full extent. If they can blame third parties - in this case the FAs and the airline - for their criminal conduct, then this makes it even less likely that they will ever better themselves.
Now in this example the scenery becomes obscene: the aggressor even faces a monetary award for beating up his wife in public whereas only jail time, chain gang, or caning should be offered.
The lawsuit would still be absurd for the same recent. The only thing meliorated would be that the criminal would not be - potentially - awarded cash for his deeds.
#103
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix
Programs: UA1k;HH Gold;MR Gold
Posts: 6,112
But the punitive damages are a awarded to the plaintiff for injuries that she hasn't even suffered. She gets the money free, just to punish the defendant. So, even after the attorney takes 30-40% (it's not going to be 50%, except in the most extreme <1% of cases), and the IRS takes its taxes (which, even under the AMT, would only be 28%), the plaintiff is still left with 30-40% of the money, completely free, no strings attached.
And clients frequently deduct the attorney's contingency fee when filing their taxes, and get away with it (as a result of IRS non-enforcement)--although the deduction is not actually allowed by law, and all these clients could be in for an audit if the IRS decides to start cracking down.
(And I say that the client gets punitive damages "completely free" because, when awarded, they are awarded in addition to the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. And actual damages are awarded tax-free, although the client still has to pay the attorney either his contingency percentage or his hourly fee.)
And...even if the IRS is getting a cut...it still doesn't follow (as was originally asserted by the other poster) that punitive damage statutes were designed to bribe bribe greedy state legislatures.
And clients frequently deduct the attorney's contingency fee when filing their taxes, and get away with it (as a result of IRS non-enforcement)--although the deduction is not actually allowed by law, and all these clients could be in for an audit if the IRS decides to start cracking down.
(And I say that the client gets punitive damages "completely free" because, when awarded, they are awarded in addition to the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. And actual damages are awarded tax-free, although the client still has to pay the attorney either his contingency percentage or his hourly fee.)
And...even if the IRS is getting a cut...it still doesn't follow (as was originally asserted by the other poster) that punitive damage statutes were designed to bribe bribe greedy state legislatures.
From wikepedia
For 2007, the AMT Exemption is not fully phased out until AMTI surpasses $415,000 for joint returns. Within the $150,000 to $415,000 range, the TMT rates of 26% and 28% are effectively multiplied by 1.25, becoming 32.5% and 35%. The TMT rate for capital gains becomes 21.5% to 22% rather than 15%, because each dollar of capital gain causes 25 cents more of ordinary income to be taxed at 26% or 28%. These are the true marginal federal tax rates for most taxpayers owing AMT. These marginal rates for TMT exceed regular tax rates at the lower end of this income range. Therefore AMT liability (the excess of TMT over regular tax) typically increases as income increases above $150,000. Non-deductibility of state income tax under the TMT exacerbates this problem. Advice to accelerate income when you will be liable for AMT is therefore exactly backwards for most taxpayers.
#104
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,253
Bribing (or bribe birbe how you put it) very likely is the - legally speaking - wrong term anyway. But as some states do have caps and restrictions on punitive damages and others do not means that the state legislators must have some involvement. Possibly for the reasons stated here by other posters.
The subject also is a permanent bone of contention with the EU whose systems are predominantly Roman law based. I partly liked the view aired in a French article demanding that the liability cases combined should be accounted for as a tariff and added to the other tariffs and fees (such as customs charges, VAT, luxury, and withholding taxes) to assess the total tariff a nation does impose. I guess I adopted parts of this view.
#105
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716