Couple sues United for overserving husband!
Dec 20, 2008, 7:55 am
#106
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 350
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.
Dec 20, 2008, 9:25 am
#107
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Texas
Programs: Many, slipping beneath the horizon
Posts: 9,859
That raises a couple of other issues...
If a settlement was joint property, then the husband is benefiting from his own criminal action, disallowed under many state codes.
Of course, the airline in many states would raise the defense of shared liability. The jury would be called upon the determine the percentage of liability assignable to the husband for beating his bride, likely a big percentage, while the airline is likely to be held less liable. A few states have codes which hold that the party with the greatest liability is responsible for the entire settlement, IIRC.
Dec 20, 2008, 12:01 pm
#108
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: mystic island, nj, USA
Posts: 2,377
Is anything ever anyones fault anymore?
The guy used his wife as a punching bag, unfortunately it happens all the time and now somehow because it happened on a plane it's somehow the airlines fault? What a gutless wonder this guy is!
I sincerely hope that UA litigates this one straight through to the end on behalf of all us responsible booze hounds!
I'm so tired of this "The Devil Made Me Do It" defense of indefensible actions, which is then followed by the lawsuit du jour.
GGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! time to log off. Insensitive remarks running amok in my brain and they need to stay there.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Dec 20, 2008 at 6:18 pm Reason: language
Dec 20, 2008, 7:31 pm
#109
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: IAD-DCA
Programs: Won Kay
Posts: 1,324
Exactly. They should countersue and make these idiots pay all of their legal fees. Oh, and the judge should bar them from flying commercial airlines. (Not sure if he can actually do that, but why not?)
Jan 8, 2009, 2:22 pm
#111
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego
Programs: Fly UA MM 1K, Sleep Hyatt & IHG, Hertzer. 2022 Flyertalk Fantasy Football Champion
Posts: 11,197
It looks like they or their attorney realized (like many others) there was no case 
A U.S. District Court in Tampa has dismissed a lawsuit against United Airlines for "negligently" overserving alcohol at the request of the Florida couple who brought the legal action.
Yoichi and Ayisha Shimamoto, asked the court on Dec. 23 to voluntarily dismiss the case, which created headlines for the novel legal theory involved.
<snip>Under the Dram Shop Act, which is in place in most states, commercial suppliers of alcohol may be held liable for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons. California's version of the statute, however, restricts suppliers' liability to damage inflicted by minors.
Yoichi and Ayisha Shimamoto, asked the court on Dec. 23 to voluntarily dismiss the case, which created headlines for the novel legal theory involved.
<snip>Under the Dram Shop Act, which is in place in most states, commercial suppliers of alcohol may be held liable for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons. California's version of the statute, however, restricts suppliers' liability to damage inflicted by minors.
Jan 8, 2009, 2:37 pm
#112
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,772
The only thing I find interesting with this latest twist is that it was filed Dec 23 and we are just hearing about it now.
Jan 8, 2009, 3:21 pm
#113
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,140
Jan 8, 2009, 7:05 pm
#114
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
It sounds like the plaintiffs filed a motion on Dec. 23 requesting that the case be dismissed, but that the case wasn't actually dismissed until a later date (maybe today). Judges take time to issue rulings.
Jan 8, 2009, 7:38 pm
#115
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,772
I agree with your post but he didn't use his wife as a punching bag on the plane, it was in the arrivals/immigration hall.
Jan 8, 2009, 8:57 pm
#116
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PDX
Programs: UA 1K MM RCC, DL 2MM/FC, Marriott PL
Posts: 143
Actually, this lawsuit reflects, IMHO, Japanese culture. I've done a lot of business over the past 30 years in Japan and have some close Japanese friends who are businessmen, and I think what people are missing in this thread (most probably don't know) is that using drunkenness as an excuse for all sorts of crimes - including serious crimes like rape and murder - has historically been quite common in that culture and often has gotten people out of jail. (Look back at the literature on Prohibition, and you'll see this was the case here in the US in the first few decades of the last century, too.)
We're all looking at this through a modern American cultural prism...this husband was using a Japanese justification for his abusive behavior (and I'll bet it's not the first time he's done it).
What's different is that, here, he was able to find a lawyer to use to blame it on UAL (that is a shame, as noted elsewhere in the thread).
We're all looking at this through a modern American cultural prism...this husband was using a Japanese justification for his abusive behavior (and I'll bet it's not the first time he's done it).
What's different is that, here, he was able to find a lawyer to use to blame it on UAL (that is a shame, as noted elsewhere in the thread).
Jan 8, 2009, 11:38 pm
#117
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Programs: 1 Million Miles UA, joined MP 1982
Posts: 54
So let's see that would have been 3 times an hour for what 10 hours = 30 glasses of wine? He wouldn't have been drunk, he would have been almost in a coma. The sad thing is FAs are damned if they do and damned if they don't -- grumpy passengers demand most booze and if they try and cut them off they get belligerent. No one wins here, and while United churns through $100-200K in legal fees to flight it they'll just find someplace to to take the cost from.
Jan 8, 2009, 11:58 pm
#118
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
Mmm, what makes you think that UA spent $100-200K in legal fees on this case? It was dismissed almost as soon as it was filed, and UA has plenty of in-house counsel, so they only need to hire a law firm for the "tough stuff."
Jan 9, 2009, 12:06 am
#119
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: TYO / WAS / NYC
Programs: American Express got a hit man lookin' for me
Posts: 4,596
Perhaps UA is different, but most big companies I know of don't handle litigation in-house, even if it's frivolous. The in-house counsel are mostly there to hire and supervise outside counsel, and also for general internal advising and policy-making. It has a lot to do with professional liability: companies like being able to sue someone else if there's a legal screw-up.
UA has probably hired a cheap Floridian litigation firm to sort this out on their behalf.
UA has probably hired a cheap Floridian litigation firm to sort this out on their behalf.
Jan 9, 2009, 7:07 am
#120
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
Perhaps UA is different, but most big companies I know of don't handle litigation in-house, even if it's frivolous. The in-house counsel are mostly there to hire and supervise outside counsel, and also for general internal advising and policy-making. . . . UA has probably hired a cheap Floridian litigation firm to sort this out on their behalf.
(1) the case was over almost as soon as it started, apparently before discovery and maybe before UA even filed an answer,
(2) UA has in-house counsel to do some work, esp. the more routine parts, such as telling the PR people what to say when random reporters call about the case. Thus reducing the number of hours that outside counsel would have to / be able to bill.