One poster spoke of boilerplate contracts. another that you are at the mercy of an airline. yet another focuses on the individuals past.
It would seem as respects the legal/contractual/ aspect of an airline's legal right to overbook and the protocols that follow are really going to be tested given the potential money damages if this matter is decided in a courtroom. To be sure an attorney will tell you contracts were made to be broken.
There is something very wrong when a commercial business has the right under a situation such as this to have policing powers. This man was not a threat. He was not out of control. he was not suspected of being a terrorist. He reacted when provoked. Can the police be charged with assault and battery? I believe so.
He will not invoke a warm fuzzy feeling with a jury. However he had been judged, tried and paid for his past transgressions.
He can and should be judged and apportioned blame for any contributor negligence that he created to cause this situation.
Bottom line for me is that United had absolutely no right to accost this guy. If they had a problem getting a flight crew to another city then it was their problem to solve without disrupting customers who fulfilled their portion of the agreement. To suggest that a flight crew was more important than a paying customer flies in the face of common sense and good public relations
Personal Best Regards:
|