Archive for the 'Lawsuit' CategoryPage 2 of 45

Facebook Faces Backlash for Livestream Murder

Random acts of violence are truly devastating, but they are even worse when they’re livestream on Facebook and shared thousands of times for the world to see. Robert Godwin Sr., a 74-year-old male from Cleveland, Ohio, was murdered in cold blood on Easter Sunday by Steve Stephens, a 37-year-old Facebook user. Stephens reportedly walked up to Godwin and shot him while videotaping the murder. Stephens later posted the video, captioned “Easter day slaughter,” to his Facebook page. The video was shared several thousand times.

Godwin’s family is still trying to process the death, but his family feels the weight of his murder with each new “share” of the video.

FacebookFacebook’s Response

After being alerted to the gruesome video, Facebook removed it, but only after it had been on their social media platform for two hours. Facebook also removed Stephens’ personal page.

Facebook received harsh criticism for not removing the violent content quicker. Facebook’s Vice President of Global Operations conceded their response was much too slow. According to Facebook, they didn’t receive the first report about the video until an hour and 50 minutes after the incident. Less than 20 minutes after the video of the murder was uploaded, someone reported a separate five-minute Facebook Live video of Stephens confessing to the murder.

Facebook said it would be “reviewing [their] reporting flows to be sure people can report videos and other material that violates [their] standards as easily and quickly as possible.” Currently, Facebook doesn’t actively search for inappropriate content. Instead, it waits for someone to flag it as inappropriate before they act.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in February that the company was working on artificial intelligence to help detect video content, but it was very early in development.

How Can Facebook Regulate Violent Content?

Facebook has become the social media powerhouse of the 21st Century. What was once created just for college students to connect with their friends is now used by the masses. It continues to take risks to pave the way among its competitors (Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat). Facebook Live is its newest feature that allows users to post live videos.

As discussed, Facebook does not have the ability or manpower to actively search for inappropriate or violent content. This is not surprising considering at last count in March Facebook had over 2 billion users worldwide. Once they are notified of violent or inappropriate content, they act quickly to remove the content and deactivate the offending person’s personal page.

Can Facebook Be Liable?

In a word, no. Facebook has no ability to control other people’s actions or read the minds of their users. It could not have anticipated that Stephens would murder someone on Easter Sunday and post the video on Facebook.

But what if Stephens posted a Facebook Live video 24 hours before the murder, declaring, “I’m going to murder someone on Easter Sunday.” What then?

The answer is still “no,” but liability is a little more murky. Let’s say someone noticed the video two hours after it was posted and reported it to Facebook. If Facebook did nothing – did not suspend the account, remove the video, or contact authorities as to the possibility of a murder – then wouldn’t Facebook have a responsibility to act? No, there is no law requiring Facebook to report a potential crime. But they’d probably be have some fallout with the public.

Facebook Videos and The Future

Critics of Facebook suggest there should be laws to limit one’s ability to post videos. This is especially true since people have started to post all sorts of things, including videos moments before committing suicide. A recent teenage couple committed suicide days apart. The boyfriend posted his parting thoughts, clearly riddled with pain and anguish, before he said, “I’m trying to get out all the words before I go.”

Any limitation on Facebook users’ ability to post could be an infringement of free speech under the U.S. Constitution.

The problem is that technology is ever changing. Companies like Facebook and Instagram are paving the way in social media, but the laws have not quite caught up to their advancements.

It’s Official: Texas Voter ID Law Violates the Voting Rights Act

On Monday April 17th,  a Federal Judge ruled that the voter ID laws enacted in Texas were enacted with not only the intent to discriminate against minorities but with the purpose of discriminating against those minorities.  This is a huge ruling with implications for both the law, S.B. 14, and the state of Texas as a whole.  This ruling has the potential to leave any law related to voting coming out of Texas subject to federal approval in the future.

However, this ruling is far from out of the blue.  The story of S.B 14 has been a back and forth saga through the courts since 2011.  Let’s take a look at the history of this bill, this most recent ruling, and what that ruling means.

Texas Voter IDThe History of S.B. 14

S.B. 14 is a law which substantially limits the acceptable types of voter IDs in Texas, often in particularly odd ways.  For instance, a hunting license is acceptable ID to vote but a student ID would not.  This is just the tip of the iceberg to what represented an enormous amount of limitations on what was acceptable identification to allow somebody to vote.  While there were suggestions to make funds available to educate the public on the details of the new restrictions and assist poorer voters to obtain sufficient identification, these suggestions were shot down at every turn and nothing of the sort made it into the final law.

When this law was initially passed in Texas in 2011, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) gave the Attorney General (AG) the power to review and shut down voting laws coming out states which had historically had discriminatory voting practices–think Jim Crow and the South.  With the effect the limitations would have and the lack of education on these effects in mind, the Attorney General at the time-Eric Holder-exercised this power and shut down the law.  While challenged this in the courts, AG Holder’s decision was upheld.

However, in 2013, a Supreme court ruling known as Shelby substantially limited the powers of the VRA.  Section 5 of the VRA allowed the federal government to pre-clear any voting laws coming out of states that previously had issues, as discussed above.  In Shelby, the Supreme Court analyzed the constitutionality of the VRA and Section 5 in particular.  They ultimately determined that, while Section 5 itself was constitutional, Section 4 was not.  Section 4 was the part of the VRA that allowed enforcement of Section 5.  Without this section, the pre-clearance requirements of the VRA were rendered essentially toothless.  The reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision was that justifications for the VRA’s restrictions-the history of discriminatory voting practices-was not the same concern it was when the VRA was enacted in the 60s.  Whether this is true or not, the Supreme Court decided that the provisions of the VRA needed to be reviewed by Congress if they were to remain in effect.

In the wake of this decision, many states-Texas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina-passed voting laws which had previously been shut down as potentially discriminatory by the federal government.  Among these was S.B. 14.  However, the law was immediately challenged in court.  In 2014, the law was determined to have discriminatory intent and purpose and struck down.  It was then appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling in part, but asked the lower court to revisit the matter of discriminatory intent.

This brings us to ruling of last week.  However, as opposed to the initial ruling, there was one huge difference–AG Jeff Sessions.  Jeff Sessions has made it clear that the potential for discriminatory voting laws is not a priority under his watch, and told his attorneys at the Department of Justice to drop this case altogether.  Despite this, and a request from the DoJ plaintiffs to drop the case, Judge Ramos-the judge handling this case-looked to the facts already submitted in coming to a resounding yes on the discriminatory intent and purpose behind S.B. 14.

Discriminatory Intent and Discriminatory Purpose

Discriminatory intent is shown where racial discrimination is a-although not necessarily the only-motivation behind a governing body’s decision.  Discriminatory purpose goes a little further than intent, implying that the law was enacted because of the adverse effects on an identifiable group.  A law demonstrating discriminatory purpose or effect is unconstitutional. A discriminatory impact is not enough on its own for a law to be unconstitutional on its face, there needs to be at least a partial discriminatory motive.

Judge Ramos found such an intent and purpose behind S.B. 14.  In determining to this, she looked to a number of things.  She noted not only the disproportionate impact that the carefully chosen ID limitations had on minorities, she also pointed to racist remarks made by legislators during deliberations on the law, the bypassing of usual procedures in passing the law, and the outright refusal to include anything which would help the public understand the laws.  Additionally, any amendment proposed to make the provisions less harsh–easing registration procedures, reducing costs to purchase the IDs necessary to vote, expanding the acceptable types of identification-were all rejected with essentially no consideration.  In fact, the Texas Congress was specifically advised of the disproportionate impact that the law would have and advised on a number of ways to lessen this disproportionate impact on minorities-they rejected all of them.

The stated goal of the bill was to avoid voter fraud.  However, despite the Texas Legislature being shown evidence that in person voting happened in about two out of every twenty million cases in the last decade and provided evidence that mail-in voting was much more commonly vulnerable to fraud, the Legislature didn’t feel the need to include any provisions on mail-in voting and focused exclusively on in-person voting.

With all this in mind, Judge Ramos ruled that she could find no non-discriminatory purpose for how Texas had approached S.B. 14.

What Will This Ultimately Mean

Unfortunately, despite years of rulings saying this law was intended to prevent minority voters from being represented at the polls, there’s a good chance this law will win out in the end.  Jeff Sessions has, as Attorney General, told the attorneys of the DoJ to cease litigating the case completely.  While Judge Ramos followed through with the case, Texas will certainly appeal her decision.  This appeal will probably have no lawyers opposing Texas, unless an outside group steps in to handle the litigation.  If this is the case, the chances of beating this law drop precipitously.  However, should somebody step in to help fight the law this is a case that has a good chance to make its way to the Supreme Court.  As it stands, even with the addition of Justice Gorsuch, the makeup of the court makes it likely that this law would be struck down and Texas would continue to require preclearance from the federal government for any new law effecting voters.

This hasn’t been a particularly good year for Texas when it comes to their voting process being ruled racially discriminatory.  Two separate courts have already ruled, this year alone, that Texas’ district maps are gerrymandered to “pack and dilute” minority votes.  The determination of Shelby limited the VRA on the premise that discriminatory voting practices were a thing of past generations.  However, this ruling and many other rulings this year have shown the opposite.  It is unlikely that congress, in its current state, will pass any legislation giving teeth back to the VRA.  However, as cases like this are appealed to the Supreme Court, they have the potential to create precedent for a future court ruling reevaluating Shelby.  However, it seems unlikely in the near the future.  Only time will tell how momentous this ruling may be, for now Judge Ramos’ ruling will serve to protect voting rights for minorities in Texas.

Tesla is in Hot Water Over Self-Driving Cars

When you about technologies of today which were once thought of as the realm of science fiction you think about 3-D printing, you think the levels we’ve reached with AI, and on that note–you think of self-driving cars.  From the silver screen to reality, the past couple years have seen enormous leaps forward in the technology behind autonomous vehicles.  That surge in technology, however, has been accompanied by a surge in lawsuits as states scramble to figure out laws to properly regulate how self-driving cars can be made, handled, and sold.  Uber has seen many a legal challenge-mostly due to their unwillingness to purchase permits-as they have rolled out self-driving cars. When Google was first testing their self-driving technology, they narrowly missed traffic tickets after a police pulled their test car over.  The reason?  The new car was only safe to drive at below 25 miles per hour so it was going 24 in a 35 zone-the officer didn’t end up giving the car a ticket.  Now, having just barely entered the market, it seems like it’s Tesla’s turn to potentially face some legal hot water over the technology.

Tesla unveiled its self-driving technology back in 2014.  However, it wasn’t until October of last year that cars with the feature were actually sold.  The feature has been dubbed Autopilot 2 and costs about $5,000 extra.   Just a few days ago, a class action lawsuit was initiated against Tesla.  The suit alleges that Tesla’s driverless technology is so unsafe as to violate consumer protection and unfair practices laws.  As the technology becomes more commonplace, lawsuits like these were nearly inevitable.  With that in mind, let’s take a look at the lawsuit against Tesla and the state of the law when it comes to driverless cars.

TeslaIs Autopilot Dangerous?

The lawsuit, brought in Federal Court in California’s Northern District, includes plaintiffs from Colorado, New Jersey, and Florida.  It includes allegations of violations of consumer protection laws of all three of those states.

The lawsuit accuses Tesla of many illegal practices.  It alleges that they are selling “vaporware,” a colloquial term for software that is advertised but non-existent.  The lawsuit alleges the Tesla advertised many upcoming safety and functionality features of their self-driving software that simply never materialized. They also say that salesmen at Tesla dealerships told plaintiffs that features that were upcoming were already part of the software.  Instead of the software they were promised, the lawsuit alleges that the using the Autopilot 2 software as is is dangerous-comparing the function to the quality of driving one would expect from a drunk driver.  They point to a specific review of the software which described the car serving across double yellow lines and nearly hopping the curb.  They point to other reviews which describe sudden hard stops at 50 MPH.  They describe plaintiffs as flabbergasted to learn that their cars couldn’t yet change lanes or exit the freeway without assistance, despite apparently being told this function was available in Tesla marketing materials.  They also describe individual experiences of plaintiffs where their cars behaved erratically while on autopilot mode.

Based on this, the lawsuit accuses Tesla of false and misleading advertising-something protected against in essentially every consumer protection statute; along with false advertising, and protections against defective products.  The statutes in the case follow the usual requirements for a claim of false advertising: knowingly making false representations about a product, with the capacity or tendency to deceive the consuming public and convince them to buy the product, with the intent to get people to buy that product.

The lawsuit also charges Tesla with violations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (requiring immediate action from manufacturers where a safety defect poses an unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident) and fraud by concealment (the deliberate hiding or suppression of an important fact with the intent to deceive).

So basically, the lawsuit is saying that the marketing materials of Tesla’s Autopilot 2 feature drastically overstated what the software was actually capable of-both as initially delivered and by missing self-imposed deadlines to provide improved functionality-instead giving buyers a product so incomplete as to be dangerous to use.  If true, this is a classic case of consumer fraud.  However, as you might imagine, Tesla has a very different description of the situation.

First and foremost, Tesla says that the lawsuit misrepresents many of the facts as to both their advertising and the functionality of Autopilot 2.  In fact, they say that many of the features that are said to be unavailable in the lawsuit actually are available and that the features that the plaintiff’s thought would be there were clearly labeled as upcoming in marketing materials

With such diametrically opposed versions of the facts, it’s hard to say exactly what the chances are of a lawsuit like this.  As you might imagine, both side’s versions of the facts are likely to hand them a swift victory.  Should the plaintiffs win, their lawsuit asks for Tesla to purchase back their cars and provide unspecified amounts of damages-likely an amount determined by the individual consumer fraud statutes-for their advertising practices.  We’ll have to see how the facts shake out before making a prediction one way or another.  Tesla’s website does indeed have descriptions of many elements of Autopilot 2 as upcoming.  However, the question is what these particular clients were told and the particular marketing materials they were provided.  What’s more, while Tesla did miss a number of deadlines for improving Autopilot 2 to bring the product into parity with other self-driving vehicles, their marketing materials do seem to say that they cannot always hold to deadlines due to the extensive work and regulatory approval required for self-driving cars.  However, it’s still too early to say exactly who is going to come out on top here.

The Law on Driverless Cars

Part of the problem with lawsuits surrounding autonomous vehicles is that the law is still trying to catch up to technology somewhat.  That being said, there has been a boom in laws regulating self-driving cars.  Not so long ago, Michigan passed some of the most comprehensive-although quite lenient-laws on the issue seen to date.

This is far from the only set of laws regulating self-driving cars.  California, Arizona, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nevada, Utah, North Dakota, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, Massachusetts, Washington D.C., and Virginia all have laws or executive orders in place regulating the use of autonomous vehicles to some extent.  In September of 2016, even the federal government–through the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration–released an updated set of suggestions providing guidance for states in making laws.

Tesla, and other manufacturers of self-driving cars, are entering a market ahead of its time; but the laws are catching up.  More and more legislation is being introduced to figure out how to handle these kind of vehicles.  However, as this lawsuit suggests, we need to make sure that the technology is there and up to snuff before it reaches the public.  As it stands, both sides are so far apart that it’s hard to take much in the way of facts away from the pleadings and their response.  At a minimum, we can see that it is a technology in progress and-like any technology in process-we have to be careful how we implement it to ensure the safety of the public.

Can Trump Be Sued for Inciting Violence at a Rally?

TrumpTrump is in hot water yet again, but this time, for something he said during one of his campaign rallies before elected into office.

On March 1, 2016, Trump held a campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky at the Kentucky International Convention Center. Three protestors were singled out during the campaign when Trump pointed to the protestors and instructed his supporters to “Get ‘em out of here,” which he repeated several times.  The three were then physically attacked. Trump then added, “Don’t hurt ‘em. If I say ‘go get ‘em,’ I get in trouble with the press.’” The protestors sustained personal injuries by being shoved and punched by Trump supporters. They sued Trump for incitement.

Trump’s lawyers filed a motion to have the case thrown out, arguing that what he said was protected free speech under the U.S. Constitution and that he wasn’t actually speaking to the crowd that night when he instructed them to “get ‘em out of here.” The Kentucky U.S. District Judge David J. Hale was unpersuaded and allowed the case to proceed.

What is Incitement?

In laymen terms, inciting violence means a person encourages, provokes or urges violence upon another. It requires somebody to actively urge violence against particular individuals.

The main question for incitement is whether the speech in question purposely and clearly directs others to commit an act of violence against another individual. The government can only punish speech if there is a “substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activity and if the speech is directed to causing imminent illegality.”

Incitement Analysis

To analyze what is incitement, we must first look to what it isn’t. Let’s take this scenario where three protestors interrupt one of Trump’s campaign rallies. Instead of directing the crowd to “get ‘em out of here,” he asks them, “Where’s the exit?” Would that be incitement?

In that scenario, no. While his intent may have been to encourage his supporters to find the exit and kick the protestors out, he would’ve simply asked a harmless question about the location of the exit. Since he wouldn’t have directed or urged them to act violently, incitement wouldn’t be found.

Let’s take the same scenario. What if Trump not only told his supporters to “get [the protestors] out of here,” but he said to a specific group of people in the crowd, “Kick [the protestors] in the stomach” and “Punch them in the face on the way out!” That would be a clear example of inciting violence. In this hypothetical, he would have told specific people in the crowd to act violently against the protestors.

Why the Judge Didn’t Dismiss the Case

Trump’s attorneys cited two main arguments for why the case should’ve been dismissed: Trump’s speech was protected free speech, and that he never directed the crowd to become violent. He argued that his insistence to “get ‘em out of here” was directed to his security guards. Judge Hale didn’t buy it.

Judge Hale looked at numerous Trump campaign speeches that were submitted into evidence by plaintiffs to demonstrate a pattern of Trump asking his audience to act violently.  Among the examples were pleas by Trump in a 2015 Alabama campaign rally that a protestor “maybe…should have been roughed up”  and a 2016 rally in Iowa when Trump instructed the crowd to “knock the crap out of” anyone getting ready to throw a tomato. In one rally in Michigan, he asked a protestor to be removed and urged the crowd not to hurt him, but then added, “If you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it.” This is our President, people.

Will Incitement be Found?

Procedurally, Judge Hale’s decision can be reversed on appeal. Trump’s attorneys would have to convince the appellate judge that Trump was not directing the speech at his campaign crowd. While that certainly may be true, Trump has teetered on the edge of encouraging violence at his rallies throughout his campaign. A judge could easily adopt Judge Hale’s thinking and reject Trump’s defense.

Whether incitement will ultimately be found would require a detailed analysis of the facts of this particular case. Either way, chances are this is not the last time we will see Trump in court for something he did or said during his presidency.

United Faces a Beating… in Court

Over the last week, the news (and many videos) of one Dr. David Dao being brutally attacked by Aviation Security Officers and dragged from his legally purchased seat on United Flight 3411 has been absolutely everywhere.  The incident has caused a firestorm of public outrage against United.

For those who have not seen the videos or read the news, passengers of Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville were told before boarding that the flight had been overbooked (United had sold more tickets to the flight than there were seats on the plane) and asked for volunteers to take $400 and a hotel stay to take a flight the following day.  This was apparently resolved, and the passengers were allowed to board the plane.  However, after the flight was boarded, United decided that it wanted four seats to fly employees to Louisville for their work on a flight the following day–it should be noted that the drive to Louisville is just over four hours.  United again requested volunteers to get off the plane, then when nobody was willing upped their offer to $800.  However, there was still nobody willing to get off.   Finally, United had a computer randomly select people to be kicked off the plane.  Dr. Dao was one member of the second couple to be randomly selected.

Dr. Dao refused to get off the plane and security was called to remove him–and remove him they did.  The footage from the many recordings made by other passengers on the flight show Dr. Dao’s head being slammed into the armrest next to him before he is pulled from his seat and, as onlookers scream in horror, his motionless form is dragged down the aisle of the plane–mouth bleeding, glasses askew, and shirt riding up his belly.  After this happened, the passengers were all removed from the plane so United employees could clean up the blood before the plane took off.

Since then, Dr. Dao has retained attorneys and has filed a motion to preserve evidence from the incident for a future lawsuit.  His attorneys report that he suffered a concussion, lost two front teeth, had his nose broken, and his sinuses were so badly damaged that he will require reconstructive surgery.

So the question is, how the heck did this happen in the first place?  The answer may surprise you, airlines have an enormous amount of leeway in a post-9/11 world.  So, with this in mind, let’s look at the law here and Dr. Dao’s chances in his upcoming lawsuit.

Airlines Overbooking and Booting Paying Customers

As anybody who’s flown in the last few years can attest, overbooking flights is an extremely common practice nowadays.  The heartbreak and annoyance of buying a ticket months in advance then being told that an airline sold more tickets than there were seats happens all the time-but it rarely escalates as far as it did in this case.

Almost every major airline currently intentionally overbooks the majority of its flights for the simple reason that it usually makes them more money than it loses them–despite how awful that is from a customer service standpoint.  The reason for this is not only the careful algorithms these airlines apply to overselling their flights, but also because these airlines are protected under both the contract you agree to and-believe it or not-federal law.

First and foremost, when you buy a ticket you are essentially agreeing to a contract with the airlines.  You best believe this contract gives the airlines enormous leeway to, among many other things, boot you off a plane.

United’s contract, a behemoth at just a bit over 37,000 words long, specifically says that when a flight is oversold passengers may be “denied boarding involuntarily.”  Overbooked is defined in their contract as when there are more passengers with valid confirmed tickets than seats before check-in time.  “Passenger” is defined as any non-crew person holding a confirmed registration.  The contract also gives them the right to boot disruptive or violent passengers–or to boot passengers for any number of other reasons.

When you buy an airplane ticket, you’re usually agreeing to something like this–United or no.  In fact, almost every major airline–with the notable exceptions of JetBlue and Virgin America–have some sort of provision allowing them to “deny boarding involuntarily.”

Code of Federal Regulations § 250.5–titled “Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily”–not only allows this but substantially limits the amount an airline needs to pay out to a booted customer.  This makes overbooking even more appealing to airlines.  All the provisions require is that any involuntarily booted passenger be provided notice in writing (see the contract you totally read when you bought the ticket) and they are compensated.  However, compensation is limited to a maximum of 200% of the one way value of the ticket ($675 maximum) if the airline offers alternative transportation and 400% ($1,350 maximum) if they don’t.  If the alternative transportation is less than an hour away–they don’t have to give you anything.  They can even offer you vouchers for their own flights in lieu of cash or check in some situations–read most situations.

This is pretty cheap for the rare occasion where the airlines actually have to pay out, so it’s no surprise they aren’t shy about overbooking.  Since the United incident occurred, the Department of Transportation has said that they are reviewing whether overbooking rules were followed here–but they doubled down on the legality of bumping passengers and are not reviewing the rule in place.

UnitedDr. Dao’s Lawsuit

So, United can bump people off planes.  They can even do it involuntarily.  However, you’ll notice that there are a few issues in their contract that are definitely going to come up in any lawsuit with Dr. Dao.

First, they are allowed to boot passengers where a plane is overbooked–but was the plane overbooked by their own definition?  There were the exact same number of paying customers as there were seats, United just wanted to jam in four of its employees.  The question is, were these employees passengers?  If they count as crew they definitely were not.  What’s more, if they didn’t have a boarding pass at time of check-in it’s unlikely they’d count as a passenger.  If the flight wasn’t overbooked, then United didn’t have the right to boot Dr. Dao in the first place.  If Dr. Dao was being disruptive or belligerent, United may still have grounds under their contract to remove him from the plane.  However, despite the police report describing him as “irate” the videos and passenger accounts put him calmly on the phone with what turned out to be his attorney.  There is some question over the mere act of refusing to disembark from the plane was sufficient to give United grounds under their contract to remove Dr. Dao.

This being said, if remove Dr. Dao from the plane was all United did this would be much less of a media explosion–the Aviation Security Officers seriously injured Dr. Dao.  The contract you sign with United absolutely does not give them the right to assault, batter, or intentionally inflict emotional distress upon a passenger.    These are all civil torts which could Dr. Dao could use as a cause of action against United.

However, even these actions might have a bit of a hiccup.  The question would become whether the Aviation Secutity Officers acted as agents of the airline or in their own independent capacity as police officers.  If the officers were not acting as agents of the airline-or it can found that the airline sanctioned them to use such force in removing Dr. Dao-then the airline is unlikely to be held liable for the actions of their officers.

In this case, Dr. Dao may need to sue the police department of Chicago itself.  One would expect that, if and when a lawsuit finally does come there would be lawsuits target both United and the police department.  Police acting in their official capacity enjoy a certain level of immunity to lawsuits.  However, if it can be shown that the use of force was excessive here–an analysis made by looking at, among other things, standard police procedure and the level of threat posed by a suspect–Dr. Dao may still be able to bring a case.

Since the incident, the three Aviation Security Officers who attacked Dr. Dao have been placed on paid leave.  However, it is worth noting that the general procedure for the security officers is to–where there is no imminent threat–contain the situation until the officers from the Chicago Police Department arrive.  In fact, according to a deputy commissioner overseeing airport security, the protocol for Aviation Security Officers is apparently to not even go on the plane if it’s a customer service issue.  While at least one of the Aviation Security Officers wore a jacket reading “police,” they are not actual police officers and the practice of wearing such a jacket was banned a few months back.

All of this points to excessive force, a situation unnecessarily escalated in violation of standard protocol.  This would strengthen any case brought by Dr. Dao.

Almost Certain to Settle

You can see that, while Dr. Dao has several causes of action with merit, none of them are without their issues.  However, it’s very unlikely to reach that point.  This whole situation has been a PR nightmare for United and they have been judged in the court of public opinion–this is not the sort of case they are likely to want to bring before a jury.  Dollars to donuts says a settlement will be forthcoming.

Since the video hit the internet, United lost around a billion dollars in value before recovering to a mere quarter of a billion loss.  The CEO of United, Oscar Munoz, has been all over the news apologizing for the incident, although he has been doing a fairly poor job of it–first describing Dr. Dao’s beating as a “re-accomodation,” then telling United employees he thinks they did nothing wrong and calling Dr. Dao “belligerent”, then finally making an unequivocal apology.  He’s since been on television promising that United would never again let law enforcement remove a “booked, paid, seated passenger”–although he had no promises regarding overbooking in general.  Mr. Munoz has also publically stated that Dr. Dao cannot be at fault for what happened and should not have been treated like he was.  These are not the responses of somebody looking to go the long haul on a lawsuit with Dr. Dao.  I would expect a settlement to hit the news sooner rather than later.