Skip to comments.Jury awards airline passenger $400,000
Posted on 01/16/2007 6:43:19 AM PST by Ellesu
A federal jury has ordered American Airlines to pay $400,000 to a computer consultant who was pulled from a flight at Logan International Airport because of security concerns, then denied reboarding even after he had been cleared by State Police. "I felt like I was being treated like a terrorist and there was no way I could prove I didn't do anything or say anything at all," said John Cerqueira , 39, who grew up in Fall River and now lives in Miami. "I'm grateful to the jury for sending the message to American Airlines that just the use of the word security isn't an excuse for unlawful behavior."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
You think so? I bet you will also be the loudest person complaining when the price of your airline tickets double because of stupid judgements like this against airlines.
Sounds like a launch vehicle. Let me know what it looks like from altitude! LOL
Did he lose a $400,000 deal because of the missed flight?
Award seems excessive.
Since I don't fly American, I doubt it. LOL!
(I do have OVER 300K miles in my United bank)
So indeed I am in the air often. At one time I was flying at the minimum of twice/week.
Typical jury insanity. Juries believe they can just conjure up money out of the thin air. This guy deserved a day's pay and that is about it.
I get tossed of a flight like this? It's jury time.
Do you know this? Is he on a "no-fly-list" now? Will he get hassled for life? Did he lose money because of delay?
Nope. I think the jury did ok.
It's more than just being detained. It's the damage to one's reputation. Everyone at that gate and on that flight thinks the guy might be a terrorist. That is significant harm to one's character and reputation. $400K is a fair price to pay for ignoring the fact he was cleared of any suspicion by the police. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Plus, in most our of court settlements, the airline would not have to admit to wrongdoing. When ruled against by the courts, the airline was proven to have committed wrongdoing against this passenger.
What year is it?
I'm trying to sell my 69 right now but winter is a hard time to sell a roadster.
His name sounds Hispanic.
No they didn't. Read Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. It is the Captain's decision as to who flys and who doesn't. If the Captain thinks you are a threat to the aircraft and or the passengers it is his decision to let you fly or remove you from the flight.
This jury and this ridiculous judgment they awarded is yet another glaring example of what is wrong with our judicial system. A LOT of people are probably going to die because of this jury and their stupidity.....hopefully the airline will win on appeal.
Ok, so I will agree he was 'undually' detained but I will point out that in order to make that determination, one must first be detained. I cannot see where 400 grand justifies a couple hour detainment.
Are you saying that all decisions to detain must have evidence of guilt prior to detainment? If so, I have to say that seems a bit unreasonable, especially in light of the fact airplanes have been know to fly into buildings. When there is a question, it should be answered and the way to do that is remove a person from a flight and see that it gets answered.
Now as for not allowing him travel. I have to say he was not denied travel, he was denied access to those particular airplines. He could have taken a cab to a bus station. He could have rented a car, he could have chosen another airline. The point being that he had other choices available to him. Are you taking the position that the airlines are not private industry? That they have no say who may fly on their planes and who may not?
This nation has lost sight of private industry and what it used to mean to have a private business. If a guy comes into my store and wants to purchase an item and I don't like the way things feel, I should have the right, as the owner, to deny that sale. That property is mine to sell and I should be able to sell it, or not sell it, based my own personal decision. No one should be able to force me to sell or not to sell. It is not their choice, it is mine.
In the case of an airline, we are talking about a service. A service is the same as a good in my store example. If you take the position you do as to this lawsuit then you have to also take the position that the government should have to take 100% control of security and all liability for it.
They must make every decision regarding who flys and who doesn't. They must also decide where passengers can wait an where those there to greet them can wait. They must decide what foods can be sold and what stores can exist in the terminal. They must decide what goods can be sold in those stores and, as I stated, who those goods must be sold to. Where does that stop?
Look, either you back private business or you don't You cannot have it both ways. You cannot expect private dollars to be invested in a business when those investors have no control over how the business is run. So which is it? If you believe in private ownership of business then you must accept that some decisions made by some owners will be ones that you disagree with, even some will you find abhorant. The balance is found in the fact that you could open a business of your own and make the decision you find acceptable.
If you take the position that business owners cannot make their own decisions, futher that they shall be punished
for any made that some find reprehensible, then you have to admit that you oppose private ownership and operation of business. I am not saying you have to like or agree with the choice the airline made. I am Just sayin that you have to respect the fact that it is their choice to make and not your's (the your's there being meant in the plural sense).
Many people demand their own choice while at the same time have no problem denying others the very same thing they demand for themselves. That makes me sad, it also makes me scared. Private land ownership and private business ownership combined with the freedom to make individual choices concerning them is what made this nation strong. Laws, lawsuits and judgments like this example is weakening the very thing that made this country what it is today. It is shame people refuse to see that.
So you accept wildly excessive jury awards, many Americans do as well. Free money from an evil corporation, gotta love that brainwashing.
"Cerqueira, who was born in Portugal and is a US citizen.."
"Cerqueira said he didn't know the men, who were Israelis, but believes he was taken into custody with the men because he looked like them."
New way to make easy money, if you have dark skin: act suspicious so the airline kicks you off (for good reason), then sue for discrimination and win lots of $$$$$.
Of course if the airline doesn't kick off suspicious passengers and they turn out to be terrorists and blow up the plane, all passengers are going to sue for wrongful death.
"The complaint included an e-mail message, which Cerqueira said is from an airline official, stating, "Our investigation has revealed that our personnel perceived certain aspects of your behavior, which could have made other customers uncomfortable on board the aircraft."
Maybe he acted suspicious deliberately, precisely to get kicked off so he can sue.
Radio, I understand why you would feel they were wron and i respect your right to feel that way. But why isit that you think it is right and proper to punish business owners becasue they make a decision you disagree with.
Are you saying that everytime someone disagrees with a decision made by a business owner they should be able to sue for damages? It apears that you are sayin that so I thought I would ask you in a straight forward manner.