United faces rough landing in court if passenger sues
United Airlines — embroiled in controversy after it forcibly removed a doctor from an overbooked flight — could be in for a legal beatdown if the passenger takes the beleaguered carrier to court, according to legal experts.
“I think they are going to have a serious legal issue on their hands,” said Anthony Tarricone, a Boston attorney who has handled cases involving aircraft accidents and disasters. “United might say they didn’t hurt him, and that it was security, but United set that situation in motion.”
Dr. David Dao, who was dragged from a Louisville-bound flight on Sunday in Chicago, told television station WLKY in Louisville that he is recovering in a hospital. When asked what his injuries were, he said: “Everything.”
Should Dao, 69, choose to take United to court, he could come away victorious, according to Tarricone, who reviewed the airliner’s terms and conditions for its contract of carriage before speaking to the Herald.
He said United may have violated the contract when they attempted to remove Dao after he had already boarded the plane. Tarricone said the airline may have been relying on language that allows them to prevent someone from boarding when they called on authorities to remove him from the plane.
“I think they not only breached the contract, but they could also be facing a viable tort claim for allowing excessive force to remove a passenger when they had no right to,” he said.
Tarricone added that United can remove passengers from a plane under its terms, but “none of those seem to apply here.”
One big question will surely come up if the case goes to trial: How far can an airline go if it wants to remove a passenger?
“Can they come in and drag you out and cause you physical harm?” said Mike Danko, a California attorney who has litigated aviation disaster cases for years. “The extent to which that form of self-help is acceptable is where this case will rest.”
United CEO Oscar Munoz may have shot the company in the foot when he told the airline’s employees on Monday that they “followed established procedures.” Instead of pegging the case on rogue security personnel, attorneys may be able to point to the statement as an acknowledgement that the company backed the behavior.
“An individual can make a mistake, and a company can admit to that,” Danko said. “But here you have a CEO saying it was right. That is what makes this case interesting. It’s not just a squabble. This is something that everyone who travels needs to be aware of and concerned about.”