4 ms·

Once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing You state that as fact, but is that true? The passenger and airline are bound by a contract of carriage, and the pa

Once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing You state that as fact, but is that true? The passenger and airline are bound by a contract of carriage, and the passenger arguably did not violate any of the stipulations in there. The airline had no business asking him to leave. I'd very much like to see this hashed out in court one way or the other, but the fear is that they'll settle without admission of liability and under seal.

slapshot 10y ago
The article at least claims as much: "And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably under a legal duty to comply."
- thrill 10y ago
  "Probably" is not how laws work.
  - greenshackle2 10y ago
    It turns out laws are ambiguous and sometimes it's hard to tell what the outcome of a judgment will be in advance (until judges actually interpret the law and make the call.) It can be hard to even tell which specific laws apply to the case. So, yes, 'probably' is how the law works, if you don't have solid precedents. ('Probably' could also just mean that there is solid precedent but the author themselves didn't do the research to figure it out. Legal research is a lot of work. It's, like, an actual job to do that sort of thing.)
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Isn't it exactly how laws work? Even for the worst of crimes, the perpetrator will only probably get caught and only probably get convicted.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    "Probably" is perhaps one of the better ways for reporters to give their opinions on questions of law that have not yet had their day in court.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    If 'probably' was not how laws work, then there would NEVER be a court case; why would the losing side go to court if the answer was certain? They go to court because laws are ALL about 'probably'.
  - jrochkind1 10y ago
    > "Probably" is not how laws work. It totally is. In the sense that you have no way to predict with certainty what a judge or jury will rule. Especially in cases where the law seems ambiguous, and/or where it or the relevant aspect of it not been tested in court much.
    - nebabyte 10y ago
      Right? The entire system is based in 'precedent', which is just a nice way of saying "well this is how we decided we'd interpret it or something similar before, let's do that" And rulings are the reciprocal "okay" "Probably" is exactly how the law works. There's a reason it's called "making your case".
      - jrochkind1 10y ago
        Basing the system on precendent is of course an attempt to increase predictability, and reduce incidence of different judges deciding different things in similar circumstances. The system tries to reduce the "probably" for certainty, but we're still humans.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  The author doesn't justify that claim though -- the rest of the article delved into the contract of carriage, but that quoted part was a all hand-wave, "in effect" and "probably" without citing any specific behaviors or laws.
greenshackle2 10y ago
My (non-lawyer) understanding is that you are allowed to breach contracts. You have to pay damages for doing it, but you are allowed. According to this Quora answer by a lawyer: https://www.quora.com/How-should-a-breach-of-contract-be-qualified-is-it-illegal-is-it-against-the-law/answer/Ani-Ravi https://www.quora.com/How-should-a-breach-of-contract-be-qua... > The legal system encourages the deliberate breaching of contracts by ensuring that there are no penalties for breach (in fact, if you try to put in a penalty clause in your contract, it won't be enforced) (Note he's not saying you won't have to pay damages; penalties and damages are not the same. Damages = compensation for the wrong you've caused, for example by breaching a contract, penalties = punishment over and above damages) Once United Airlines breached its contract with Dr. Dao and decided he could no longer be on their plane, he was trespassing. They owed him damages for breaching the contract, but that's an issue to be decided in court, not right there and then when the cops where asking him to get off. As far as I am aware, it is not the cops job to arbitrate breach of contract issues. (Again, not a lawyer, and I expect regulations around air travel are more stringent, so it could be more complicated than that. Could be they broke some FAA or DOT or whatever regulation, I really don't know.)
- tyingq 10y ago
  It's not that simple. Common carriers are subject to more regulation around duty of care, refusal of service, and so forth. Lawyers will have to hash this one out. Though United might settle before we get to the real answer.
  - greenshackle2 10y ago
    Right, that's why I added: > (Again, not a lawyer, and I expect regulations around air travel are more stringent, so it could be more complicated than that. Could be they broke some FAA or DOT or whatever regulation, I really don't know.)
  - HarryHirsch 10y ago
    Unfortunately, breaking the common carrier rules isn't a crime. The content industry managed to declare movie piracy a crime, wouldn't it be nice if we could bribe Congress into penalizing breaking the common carrier regulations?

slapshot 10y ago

The article at least claims as much: "And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably under a legal duty to comply."

thrill 10y ago
"Probably" is not how laws work.
- greenshackle2 10y ago
  It turns out laws are ambiguous and sometimes it's hard to tell what the outcome of a judgment will be in advance (until judges actually interpret the law and make the call.) It can be hard to even tell which specific laws apply to the case. So, yes, 'probably' is how the law works, if you don't have solid precedents. ('Probably' could also just mean that there is solid precedent but the author themselves didn't do the research to figure it out. Legal research is a lot of work. It's, like, an actual job to do that sort of thing.)
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Isn't it exactly how laws work? Even for the worst of crimes, the perpetrator will only probably get caught and only probably get convicted.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  "Probably" is perhaps one of the better ways for reporters to give their opinions on questions of law that have not yet had their day in court.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  If 'probably' was not how laws work, then there would NEVER be a court case; why would the losing side go to court if the answer was certain? They go to court because laws are ALL about 'probably'.
- jrochkind1 10y ago
  > "Probably" is not how laws work. It totally is. In the sense that you have no way to predict with certainty what a judge or jury will rule. Especially in cases where the law seems ambiguous, and/or where it or the relevant aspect of it not been tested in court much.
  - nebabyte 10y ago
    Right? The entire system is based in 'precedent', which is just a nice way of saying "well this is how we decided we'd interpret it or something similar before, let's do that" And rulings are the reciprocal "okay" "Probably" is exactly how the law works. There's a reason it's called "making your case".
    - jrochkind1 10y ago
      Basing the system on precendent is of course an attempt to increase predictability, and reduce incidence of different judges deciding different things in similar circumstances. The system tries to reduce the "probably" for certainty, but we're still humans.
srtjstjsj 10y ago
The author doesn't justify that claim though -- the rest of the article delved into the contract of carriage, but that quoted part was a all hand-wave, "in effect" and "probably" without citing any specific behaviors or laws.

greenshackle2 10y ago

My (non-lawyer) understanding is that you are allowed to breach contracts. You have to pay damages for doing it, but you are allowed. According to this Quora answer by a lawyer: https://www.quora.com/How-should-a-breach-of-contract-be-qualified-is-it-illegal-is-it-against-the-law/answer/Ani-Ravi https://www.quora.com/How-should-a-breach-of-contract-be-qua... > The legal system encourages the deliberate breaching of contracts by ensuring that there are no penalties for breach (in fact, if you try to put in a penalty clause in your contract, it won't be enforced) (Note he's not saying you won't have to pay damages; penalties and damages are not the same. Damages = compensation for the wrong you've caused, for example by breaching a contract, penalties = punishment over and above damages) Once United Airlines breached its contract with Dr. Dao and decided he could no longer be on their plane, he was trespassing. They owed him damages for breaching the contract, but that's an issue to be decided in court, not right there and then when the cops where asking him to get off. As far as I am aware, it is not the cops job to arbitrate breach of contract issues. (Again, not a lawyer, and I expect regulations around air travel are more stringent, so it could be more complicated than that. Could be they broke some FAA or DOT or whatever regulation, I really don't know.)

tyingq 10y ago
It's not that simple. Common carriers are subject to more regulation around duty of care, refusal of service, and so forth. Lawyers will have to hash this one out. Though United might settle before we get to the real answer.
- greenshackle2 10y ago
  Right, that's why I added: > (Again, not a lawyer, and I expect regulations around air travel are more stringent, so it could be more complicated than that. Could be they broke some FAA or DOT or whatever regulation, I really don't know.)
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  Unfortunately, breaking the common carrier rules isn't a crime. The content industry managed to declare movie piracy a crime, wouldn't it be nice if we could bribe Congress into penalizing breaking the common carrier regulations?