 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rubin v. United Air Lines2/20/2002
o sit in seat 26B. She instead moved a bit further back and sat in someone's seat who was then in the lavatory. When the person returned from the lavatory, United personnel had to again request Ms. Rubin to leave the seat.
In the meantime the purser alerted the pilot who came out of the cockpit to assess the situation. The flight was already considerably delayed and many passengers were becoming upset and unruly. The pilot, purser and service director conferred and decided Ms. Rubin should be removed from the flight. As the service director described the situation, "it was unacceptable behavior, it was unsafe behavior. I had a riot going on, just about, and this is where I draw the line."
Ms. Rubin refused to comply with the gate agent's request to leave the plane voluntarily. In fact, she refused to stop talking on her cell phone long enough to even acknowledge his presence. The gate agent testified he thought Ms. Rubin could have been a danger to other passengers on the airplane because of her "aggressive behavior." The gate agent reasoned, "She wouldn't listen. She wouldn't listen to the uniform crew member , she wouldn't listen to the service director. She was very loud. And in her conversation on the phone, that was very loud, and completely ignoring my presence less than 20 inches from her, looking her dead in the eye . . . ."
United personnel then summoned the assistance of the Los Angeles Airport Police Department. Given the length of the delay of 20 to 25 minutes, and the volatile situation they discovered on board, the police officers were ready to arrest Ms. Rubin and file charges against her for obstructing a flight crew. Indeed, one of the officers believed because so many of the passengers were angry at Ms. Rubin her own personal safety would have been at risk had she remained on the flight.
In short, the undisputed evidence establishes Ms. Rubin did, or at least attempted to, make an unauthorized entry into the first class forward cabin area, which airline personnel consider a threatening act. Moreover, the undisputed evidence establishes Ms. Rubin repeatedly and deliberately refused to comply with any of the directions from any of the airline personnel regarding safety issues. This evidence in combination, coupled with the unruly and potentially dangerous situation she helped create on board, is sufficient as a matter of law to establish United when it made its decision had a reasonable basis for believing Ms. Rubin, was, "or might be, inimical to safety," which in turn justified removing her from this particular flight.
Ms. Rubin's allegedly triable issues of fact, for example, whether the flight was already somewhat delayed, whether the outraged purser unilaterally decided to have her ejected, or whether the passengers instead applauded because they were promised a free movie, are too immaterial to alter this conclusion. Accordingly, we further conclude the trial court correctly granted judgment in United's favor and dismissed the action.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded costs on appeal.
We concur:
WOODS, J.
PERLUSS, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|