A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the man who was charged with “abusive sexual contact” after inappropriate touching of an unaccompanied minor on an American Airlines Dallas – Portland flight. Apparently the flight wasn’t full but he chose the middle seat next to the young girl rather than the empty aisle in his own row. Creepy.
I concluded that there are awful passengers in the sky, because there are awful people in the world. Flying is increasingly democratic. A broad cross section of people travel side-by-side across the country every day, and that includes — and necessarily will include — a small minority of awful people, and a small minority of people who do awful things.
That’s not satisfying, but the truth is incidents are rare on planes just as they’re relatively rare in society (though when they happen they make news).
The parents of the 13 year old girl groped while enroute to Portland are now suing American Airlines for $10 million.
Attorney Brent Goodfellow filed the suit Tuesday in Portland, alleging the June incident caused his client extreme fear and psychological trauma.
…’This horrendous set of events lasted approximately 30 minutes without American’s intervention.’
Authorities have said an attendant on the Dallas-to-Portland flight was delivering snacks when she noticed Camp’s hand in the victim’s crotch area.
She saw the girl shed a single tear and quickly separated the two.
But the girl’s family says the airline was negligent in supervising the 13-year-old – especially after they had to pay a $150 fee for her to travel as an unaccompanied minor.
What happened to this girl was terrible. And it makes sense for the parents to sue American, rather than just the guy who did it, because they have money.
However it was an American flight attendant who spotted something amiss, stopped it, and seated the offending passenger away from the minor. At some level, thank them, don’t sue them. (The girl didn’t raise an objection herself – she was understandably frozen — the American flight attendant was vigilant and stepped in.)
The family argues that American was negligent though — they paid American a $150 unaccompanied minor fee, so American should watch the minor. This is where things get dangerous.
- Surely a $150 fee doesn’t make the airline liable for anything that happens to the child. If it did no airline would be willing to accept an unaccompanied minor, or they’d have to charge a much higher price.
- Were they even negligent? The flight attendant paid attention and put a stop to the abusive behavior by another passenger.
- And that’s not what you’re paying the airline for. You may want to believe a $150 fee gets the airline to act like a parent from dropoff to pickup. But here’s the service American sells:
Our unaccompanied minor service is to ensure your child is boarded onto the aircraft, introduced to the flight attendant, chaperoned during connections and released to the appropriate person at their destination.
The service does not include any inflight monitoring.
What did surprise me, though, is that the required unaccompanied minor form doesn’t contain stronger language on release of liability.
However, the form itself looks like a .pdf of a bad photocopy — and doesn’t look like it’s gotten much attention in some time. For instance, it contemplates the possibility of transfer of an unaccompanied minor to another airline when American’s website specifically states this is not permitted.
An incident like this may cause American Airlines to update its form.
Ultimately I’m thankful that kids can often be more resilient than they’re given credit for, and I’m hopeful she gets the help she needs. It’s natural to want to place blame for a terrible incident. But I think it’s hard to get beyond the perpetrator.
Gary, this is a tough one, at the point the airline charges for a UM service I assume they are paid take on the role of legal guardianship during the transfer process. Similar as a school bus driver is responsible for getting a child home safely. They can try to word it differently on the website, but I don’t think a judge would see it otherwise.
So in theory they are responsible for the child’s well being regardless of in-flight or at the gate. I think that is what the 150 USD service is paying to fullfill. In the end if I was the parent I also would be pissed off about this situation. If the plane was really half empty how did the Flight attendant not notice the pervert moving to sit next to the child?
While, I agree the 10 Million might be a bit high, but I understand their perspective.
Agree with your assessment. Sounds like a bad situation, but not necessarily criminally negligent on AA’s part. Sue the passenger for justice, if that is what you want.
That being said, I do wish airlines offered more for the $150 and treated UMs as an enhanced service rather than the money-grab it seems it is today. While there are great employees who do care, there are too many stories of kids being handed off, forgotten, or other issues. For $150, (probs 10 hours worth of pay at $15 per hour) surely we can do better
This is what gives the US “Justice” system such a bad name. There can be no justice in fining American $10m, or indeed $10,000, for the behavior of another passenger. They did not sell a chaperone service while on the plane and, from the level of the $150 fee, it’s quite clear that everyone knew that it was not a chaperone service while on the plane. It’s simply a scam to get the insurance company to pay up, thus increasing yet again its rates and making everyone else pay for this wealth transfer.
Presumably the mother did not brief her daughter on what to do if she’s uncomfortable – press the call button. I can absolutely understand the poor girl’s terror but, by the age of 13, children need to start taking some responsibility for their own circumstances and an airline seat is many times safer than a dark alley where a 13 year old might want to smoke something.
If this case wins, then clearly all airlines will have to react either by blocking an entire row where the minor will sit (how will parents feel about paying $150 + three times the fare?) or by employing someone to sit next to the child throughout the flight (plus go to the restroom with her???) or by insisting that the parents employ a full time chaperone. None of these outcomes makes any sense at all.
Some airlines (hi Qantas) have a policy of not allowing a male passenger to sit inboard of a UM: UMs are allocated the whole row, or if the flight is full, the aisle seat, in the row closest to the galley (ie the cabin crew). Thus the child is never prevented from accessing the aisle (ie escape). If the child is occupying the row alone, crew will not permit a male passenger to move into the row. This is confidently enforced as it is simply a long-standing requirement, so part of the airline’s culture and to my knowledge not questioned. There is also a compulsory preflight briefing of every UM which includes pointing out the call-light and the proximity of the galley. Ultimately the seats are under control of the crew and refusing to follow the direction of a crew member is an offence, so a passenger can’t insist that they can sit in a seat near a child; again the crew tend to be confident in their legal standing with regard to this. In any case such insistance would raise a red flag and the crew would block access to the child accordingly. Other airlines do not have such stringent policies: it surely remains the parents’ responsibility to ascertain individual airlines’ policies and procedures to find the one that best fits their expectations.
Yup just look for the unaccompanied minor fee to increase 10x at least if they find American liable.
Gary – You don’t have the facts or a law degree. Let the court decide if American was negligent. And FYI American doesn’t necessity need a waiver of liability, they need a warning on their forms.
Nothing like a know it all e-lawyer going off hearsay and their own over-entitled opinions. Where did you attend law school and which state(s) bars have you been admitted to?
I am not offering legal analysis here.
Can I make some suggestions, Gary? It would be helpful to new readers if you indicated that you aren’t a lawyer. (To be clear, I’m not suggesting you’re not entitled to write about your opinion — just that new readers may not realize you are not providing legal analysis and that they should not in any way rely on your opinions as legal advice.) Your unequivocal headlines could also be more clear that it’s your opinion. Maybe when you’re just sharing your opinion (rather than reporting on a deal or credit card) you could say “My Take:” or something in the headline. Finally, it would be helpful if you linked to the actual complaint in the case or indicate what documents you’re relying on. Have you read the complaint, or are you going off the article that you linked to? Because some of the other articles also note that the minor was not asked if she wanted to move — they only asked the man, who declined. Presumably the complaint is publicly available, and linking to it might allow readers to draw more informed positions.
In particular, this article makes it clear that both American and the man have been sued, which is the opposite of what you said in your post, where you said they sued American “rather than the guy who did it.” http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/07/08/outraged-dad-sues-airline-for-10-million.htm
Your comment that “kids can often be more resilient than they’re given credit for” also seems to suggest that her parents may be overreacting. I’m sure you didn’t intend that, but since you presumably haven’t worked with sexual assault survivors and don’t know this child, it’s another comment that reads in a way you probably didn’t intend.
Lawsuits — particularly one involving sexual assault of a child — can be nuanced, and it might help the level of discussion if you took these steps to make clear what information you are basing your opinions on (whether you’ve seen the complaint or not) and that they are one layperson’s opinion rather than fact. Otherwise, you run the risk of people assuming you are repeating PR points that have been provided by one side in the case.
I have no interest in this case, but I think you could do better with complex issues like this.
In terms of the suggestions that the UM fee will increase — American has insurance so they won’t be paying out of pocket. And if they decide to raise the UM fee to cover the cost of self-insuring for this one, or higher premiums, people can choose to either fly with their child if the cost ends up going up that much, use another airline with a lower cost, or people may actually decide that the cost is well worth it if it means the airline will pay attention and do something to try to prevent a situation like this, rather than just noticing after it has happened.
Amy my comment about kids being more resilient than we often give them credit for is something I am THANKFUL FOR and not at all meant to minimize the situation, I think I emphasize in this post that this was a terrible thing that happened.
“They should lose” is necessarily a statement of opinion. I am making an argument. It is not a legal argument. There are no references to statutes in the post. There are no references to cases in this post. Nowhere is there legal analysis, though I express surprise at the relatively shoddy form that American has guardians sign.
Of course parents can pick their airline, but (1) in many cases will want to pay a premium if it means non-stop, (2) why would you think that a precedent holding an airline liable for the actions of another passenger inflight would only influence the price that American charges? The fee wouldn’t be about recouping losses from this litigation but would be about the (legal) risk in transporting an unaccompanied minor, and (3) a higher cost may seem worthwhile to you ‘if it means preventing something like this’ but remember that THIS is incredibly incredibly rare whereas a higher cost could be a barrier to travel period [or it may mean that children old enough where traveling unaccompanied is optional don’t do so at all and receive less care not more].
Gary, I provided what I intended to be a helpful comment, and you didn’t even address it. No need to be defensive, either.
I pointed out that you have factual misstatements (like saying that the family isn’t suing the man accused, when exactly the opposite is true). You did not acknowledge that you’re wrong and didn’t correct your post. Multiple people have pointed out that you’re not a lawyer, but you don’t state that in your post. You can get defensive about what kind of argument you’re making, but I am simply pointing out that you ought to think about how you want readers to understand your views.
You are obviously welcome to have — and write about on your own blog — these black and white proclamations of your own views but you should make clear your level of familiarity with the topic (whether you’ve read any underlying documents or not) and have any training in this topic so people can assess and understand whether you’re writing as an expert on miles, points, and frequent business travel, or something else.
On the fees, again, if you think there aren’t parents who would find it worth it to pay double so their child wouldn’t be sexually assaulted, you are incorrect. Furthermore, the changes that have been requested (having kids sit in front and in aisle seats so they can get away, for example) are not things that would break the bank.
Agreed with the comments above that you’re not a lawyer. You’re throwing around terms like “strict liability” even though they do not apply here. American Airlines is a common carrier and common carriers owe a higher duty of care to their passengers. Furthermore, as the facts suggest, the parents paid a UM fee which argues for an even stronger duty of care.
Furthermore, your accusation of the parent suing “because American has money” is inflammatory and also cruel. Lawsuits can and do create good results. Perhaps this will mean airlines will pay more attention to children instead of forgetting about the incident. In this case there was a vigilant flight attendant, maybe this will encourage continued vigilance.
@Amy I’m sorry you took it that way, I meant to explain where I’m coming from which seems to be different than how you’re taking my post in a big way. It wasn’t my intention to suggest the family isn’t suing the guy ALSO though of course he’s likely to be judgment proof.
I do not state in my post that I’m not a lawyer, but gosh it didn’t seem necessary since it’s pretty obvious who I am, I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer in writing this blog for 14 years, and I don’t make legal arguments in the post. It didn’t seem to me like anyone would be confused on this point, that I was making an argument about what seems like the best outcome to me and wasn’t offering predictions about how the law would treat such a matter.
I’m absolutely not suggesting there aren’t parents who would be willing to pay double. I’m suggesting it would price many people out of the service, just as the current $150 fee does.
In any case, what I do and have always done on this blog for 14 years is stake out strong positions and argue them. I’m open to criticism, in fact I very much enjoy and appreciate it. Arguing over it does help me improve, refine my arguments, change my mind. I love a real culture of critique.
So thanks so much,
Gary
Was this the case where the FA offered the man to change seats and he declined? If so, it shows (i)that there was enough empty space so that the minor could travel with an empty seat, and (ii) FA was not as vigilant as you point out since FA could have moved the child or insist (not sure if AA has a policy on minors traveling with an empty space if available).
Don’t know all the facts but suit doesn’t seem that far fetched to me. It would be interesting what can be found during discovery.
@CMK10 – perhaps it’s difficult for you from where you sit (I think you’re a lawyer from past comments?) to see the distinction.
On the other hand perhaps I’m being less clear than I’d have hoped and should have anticipated where I’m coming from was more obvious, and should have bolded it.
And I see from your comment – thank you – my use of a word that wasn’t intended to convey a specific legal rule has specific meaning to lawyers, that could be the source of this confusion and I’ve removed ‘strict’ so that I can be clearer.
I am making an argument about what I believe ought to be the disposition of a case like this — I am not offering an analysis of legal statutes or case law (neither of which I make reference to).
It’s the difference between discussing what role our legal system ought to have versus discussing how that system works.
I make no prediction in this post at all about what the outcome of this case WILL BE. I’m not intending to suggest that ‘they have no case’ but that they ‘should have no case’.
Why I disagree with you…the parents paid for her to sit alone. In other words, this man should not have been allowed to sit next to her on the plane. This makes the airline liable. They specifically stated they requested she sit alone and they paid the extra fee for that.
You take custody of a kid for a fee, put her in a closed metal tube, and she gets assaulted for 30 minutes on your watch? $10 million is likely an outrageous number, but this one seems far from the kind of frivolous case we usually see. If airlines don’t want to be in this business, so be it, but if they want to do it, this goes with the territory.
I’m not saying the family should win or lose. We don’t know all the facts. The law has a very sophisticated way of analyzing theses situations — that is for determining when a third party’s intervening conduct breaks the chain of causation and provides a defense. This is not the kind of case unfamiliar to the legal system, just a new fact pattern, and the existing law will be plenty well equipped to sort this one out.
Fortunately, despite all the hand wringing because of celebrated and exaggerated frivolous verdicts, we decide cases base on facts and evidence subject to well established 200 year rules for determining the veracity of evidence. I would submit this process is superior to bloggers guessing about the facts and deciding what policy should be. Another problem that non-lawyers have with these sorts of cases is forgetting that every fact circumstance cannot be predicted and so the law you make in a context like this can have impacts in circumstances beyond one’s narrow focus. Gary is a travel blogger, so that’s what he sees. It’s easy to miss the fact that published decisions in cases like this impact what happens, for example, in a case where a kid gets molested at camp, or a bar patron gets his jaw by another patron who arguably should have been thrown out, etc.
“…grateful that kids are more resilient than they are given credit for…”
No. Please don’t assume resilience where you have no expertise. This comment shows that you really don’t see this incident as the really big deal that it actually is.
As an adult I was groped by an older Hasidic Jewish man on a packed bus from Binghamton NY to NYC. I couldn’t believe it was happening to me…here was this religious looking man in a suit, and he used his hat to hide his wandering hand and pretended he was sleeping while he was doing it. I was so confused, so “frozen” as you put it that all I could do was sort of jerk away every time he tried to get his hand into my crotch. As an adult, I was not psychologically scarred for life — I have a lot of tools that help me be more resilient. But I will always be somewhat haunted by the fact that I didn’t stand up for myself in the moment- that I let this man get away with it, that I did not immediately tell the bus driver or ask that the man be kicked off the bus. At the time I felt embarrassed, I didn’t want to make a scene and really, I was just frozen with disbelief that it was happening. I am still ashamed that I did not take action.
Incidents like these have complicated impact on our experience of the world, our identities, our sense of safety. Please do not make assumptions about how this incident has affected the young girl who experienced it.
Crappy article – not sure how it ended up on Flipboard. AA was negligent and let a 13 year-old get abused right under their nose. Hopefully they are legally held responsible and can get their act together. This article makes it seem as if AA is the victim here.
@Aurora Moore – I make no assumptions about how this young girl is handling the situation, I assume it was horrible and certainly don’t minimize any trauma you or anyone else has been through. I am grateful that many kids have been able to recover from horrible things, but that statement does not mean to suggest that every kid recovers or most recover fully.
Gary :
Next time a stranger strokes your vagina uninvited REGARDLESS OF AGE you can have an opinion until then why don’t you stick to miles
@Tess – I agree with you, AA would do well to look at and emulate other good policies.
@Gary – one glaring problem in this for AA is, on a not-full flight, they should have assigned at least an empty seat next to the UM. They also should have noticed the MINUTE someone sat next to the UM and they should have addressed the situation right then. If AA is monitoring the UM then they also should make it very clear to those seated around the UM…which one of us would not help keep an eye on a child if we knew he/she was alone? Or even better, put the UM in the forward cabin, more room between seats, more attention from FAs.
Was the perpetrator charged with at least a Class A Misdemeanor for doing this? Worst case for the victim should be that charge of unwanted touching, or whatever the correct term is. I’ve known consensual teenagers charged with more, let alone someone in this situation.
If the lawsuit implements a change that protects a single minor from sexual assault, its worth it. Some time change occurs through lawsuits.
To imply AA is not responsible at all, and should suffer no repercussions is a terrible and morally reprehensible opinion – IMO.
I don’t know enough to have an opinion on the substance; your arguments seem reasonable. However, you certainly are offering a legal analysis — quoting the contract language, linking to the signed documents, and opining on the what the correct legal outcome of the suit ought to be.
@Courtney – $150 doesn’t get an empty seat. However, my experience has been that UMs are usually put up front and together if more than one on the flight. It would seem like, except for a full flight, the FA should not have allowed the guy to sit next to her. I’m betting this is settled out of court.
I do believe that anyone who reads Gary’s blog knows what and how he writes and for the lawyers to come out of the woodwork and litigate the case in the blog is a bit pretentious.
The other fact that plays into the culpability of the airline is that the man had been heavily drinkin in the airport prior to the flight. Moreover, during boarding the flight attendant asked the man if he would prefer a different seat away from the girl. There were other open seats to be had. He replied that he did not want to move. As a result, at that time, prior to takeoff, the flight attendant saw a potential of risk for the girl but failed to act. The flight attendant could have then moved the girl to a different seat, but did not. In other words, a potential threat to the child’s safety was seen and it caused the flight attendant to ask the man the question about moving . But given the facts more should have been done.
I dont think you need a lawyer on this one; in the court of public opinion and common sense, AA screwed up
Well…this one sure escalated quickly
This article is not the full picture of the events that were discussed in different article that was written right after the event took place. It is a little bit miss leading in my opinion.
@Gary, It appears that you have a very restricted view of the duty of care and therefore feel that American should be vindicated in the lawsuit. The duty of care to the unaccompanied minors an airline transports is broader than the quoted statement on American’s unaccompanied minor service. American (and American’s lawyers) knows that and admits as much in the article you reference:
“American Airlines spokeswoman Brianna Jackson says the company is reviewing the lawsuit while continuing to cooperate with an FBI investigation.
‘American cares deeply about our young passengers and is committed to providing a safe and pleasant travel experience for them,’ she told Daily Mail Online.”
It seems you think that $150 is too small a fee to subject the airline to potential liability when bad things happen. But a duty of care is not based on how much someone pays or if they pay at all. That’s the way it should be.
Regarding possible negligence in this case, we do not know all of the facts. One might draw an inference that the flight attendant had some suspicions about an inappropriate situation when she asked the man if he’d like to move. If so, perhaps it would be reasonable to conclude that she should have moved the minor when the man refused.
Why does someone rich need to be “responsible” every time something bad happens? It is awful that the girl was assaulted, and I hope that the perp. goes to jail for a long time. If the perp has assets, the family should be able to sue for those.
What is American’s responsibility? So many people fly, good people and bad. Shouldn’t the TSA be responsible for letting the perp get through security? What about the airport where the perp boarded? Perhaps we should sue the school the perp went to for not picking up on the warning signs earlier. Should AA install anti-pedophile screening at boarding for flights? (could make it very difficult for the clergy to travel).
You write “it makes sense for the parents to sue American, because they have money”.
Or may be to make American to change their process / practice to better protect minors travelling alone.
You write “it was an American flight attendant who spotted something amiss, stopped it, and seated the offending passenger away from the minor.”
May be the attendant should not have put the minor in such a vulnerable position to start with.
@Jerry B, the pretentiousness was present in this blog long before the lawyers jumped into this thread to correct TLiT.
It never ceases to amaze when people place blame of others for their poor choices, then, attempt to collect money for it,, bottom line is, if the parents are so concerned for their child’s well-being, then they wouldn’t have let their daughter fly alone under any circumstances. Shame on you mom and dad, where were you? Obviously not protecting your child! You should have accompanied your daughter thus ensuring her safety, instead, you placed her welfare into the hands of strangers. Now, you want a fortune because you failed to be there, and your daughter had to endure a horrible experience. Seems to me you want to be compensated for your lack of responsibility, why aren’t you suing the creep that groped your daughter? How dare you sue the people who SAVED your daughter from possibly something worse happening to her! If you had cared about her in the first place, you would have been the one sitting next to her,, someone should sue you for neglegence!
“I’m not offering legal analysis here” says Gary Leff, as he plasters a legal conclusion on the title.
The airline owed a duty of care to the child. That alone gives the parents a contentious issue worth litigating over. Let the courts suss out AA’s specific obligations on the contract.
You are not qualified to speak on this. Please stick to what you know.
On second thought I’m not sure if Gary truly believes in his own wonky jurisprudence or if he simply wrote a controversial piece to drive more traffic to his site. Either scenario seems likely.
This is a close call.
PS. While we’re on the subject of creeps, isn’t it about time Gary changed his profile pic? That smile has always rubbed me the wrong way. Eeeeek.
@shelly – wow, talk about victim blaming – i dont think any parent believes their child will be sexually assaulted
Yes, they should be able to sue the airlines and yes they should win. Furthermore the man should had been retained and arrested.
Why should they be allowed to sue AA and win, is a simple fact that. Each has and every passenger is assigned to a seat on their boarding pass. This is for security reasons, so if anything happens in flight passengers can be identified. He should had not been allowed to sit where he wanted but to have sat where his assigned seat was. Period.
I think Amy still has it right and your article is that of an airline apologist. People have assigned seats, the guy moved himself from his assigned seat to an unaccompanied minor female, with no questions or wonder from the crew. Seems negligent enough for it to get to a judge and jury to decide. Unfortunately this is just another example of how little American cares about its passengers. It’s not a legal basis, but American deserves to be slapped for their disdain for the average travelers. They made enough on their extra fees for everyone’s checked luggage to cover whatever they have to pay in defence fees and any possible verdict.
@ Gary/Amy
What an excellent discussion over what responsibilities the media has to the public. Putting the topic of the article aside for this one post, you both discussed what I feel is the current issue with the media/public relations.
Amy argued the side of the public while Gary argued the side of the media. Both sides have merit, the media does have a responsibility to report events with a clear message, the public should understand that any member of the media is just one source and not the final word.
@shelly – It never ceases to amaze me that how ignorant or narrow minded people can be!!! Bottom line is, yours are the worst comments I have read on a blog. Not your fault… Obviously, you don’t have kids, or even family for that matter. So, you would never understand why her parents had to let her fly alone!!
Based on the details on this case I read, AA is definitely is at fault and must be sued along with the that perv. I see either AA losing or settling out of court.
I see this as similar to the Aurora theater shooting lawsuit and in a similar vein I hope AA successfully defends and then countersues to recover expenses from these people who are using this as a money grab opportunity. Holding an airline liable for the behavior of passengers is clearly ludicrous…
Gary you have stated that you receive compensation. Now, if you get something from AA, then you are an interested party and your opinion on a subject so dangerous as child molestation is way out of line. Stick with what you know or risk loosing you well deserved reputation.
From the American Airlines flight attendant job description:
The chief responsibility of a flight attendant is to ensure safety of passengers and their evacuation in case of emergency Abide by and ensure all passengers abide by all Federal Aviation Regulations Perform emergency and evacuation procedures when necessary Ensure passengers are seated properly Maintain cabin safety under severe turbulence Communicate with the captain Explain and demonstrate safety features Distribute reading materials, pillows, and blankets to passengers who request them Serve refreshments and meals to passengers and crew during flight Give first aid assistance and help uncomfortable, ill or nervous passengers Answer passenger questions and reassure apprehensive travelers Take special care of unaccompanied children Safety demonstration and announcements Assist passengers with disabilities Operate mechanical and safety equipment Monitor cabin lighting and temperature Answer a wide variety of questions Distribute customs forms Maintain a friendly and helpful service during flights Make landing announcements Check that cabin is secure for landing Thank passengers for choosing your airline at the end of flights”
Importantly: “help uncomfortable, ill or nervous passengers Answer passenger questions and reassure apprehensive travelers Take special care of unaccompanied children”
Wasn’t done.
Honest question: can someone please explain to me why its a big deal if you are calling Gary’s opinion “legal analysis” or not? Why is it his job to post a disclaimer? Why isn’t he entitled to state his opinion, since he has no direct relation to the case? TIA.
I have to laugh at the new lawyer Charles to point out that, ” Furthermore, your accusation of the parent suing “because American has money” is inflammatory and also cruel.” So if the parents are suing for 10 Million dollars why not sue the man who did the event? Why, because the scum doesn’t have 10 million dollars, very simple. Should the parents sue AA, yes, but not for 10 millions dollars but to fix the UM policy, but the parents should be suing the creep that sexually assaulted their daughter.
To everyone:
The stupidest guy on the internet doesn’t get to inform others about how the law works.
For avoidance of doubt I do not receive compensation from American Airlines of any kind, other than as a frequent flyer of the airline (which I earn via paid flights).
This is not even a close call. AA is going to pay big $$ to settle this and make it go away fast (though not $10MM). AA undertook responsibility for a minor when she boarded the flight, regardless of the fee paid. AA told the guy to take another seat but he chose to sit next to the minor. That is gross negligence right there. It’s pretty clear Gary does not have any children or maybe even nieces or he would see this is crystal clear. The FA failed to ensure the safety of the passenger. The only negotiation here will be over the amount paid to settle. And you can bet all the airlines will be reviewing their training for handling trips by unaccompanied minors.
Rather callous article. I suspect the writer does not have a daughter?