Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 18:10

Post #101 of 115 (1139 views)

OneGoodLeg wrote:

Frank wrote:

I'm sorry but "Her passing out caused her to be missed by the flight crew." is a fallacy.

Put simply: the flight crew's *negligence* cased her to be missed by the flight crew. It is the flight crew's responsibility to make sure no humans are on the plane. Regardless of a passenger's intent. Regardless of their physical condition. Regardless of their location on the plane.

End of.

This; JSA can fuck right off. I agree w/ him her story reeks of BS, and further agree she deserves zero compensation for her self-initiated non-injury... And yet all that doesn't allow the airline a pass for failing to execute their duties properly. The higher standard or expectation of conduct rests on the professionals here, not the passenger. Like OCT says, just because her scheme only amounted to some low-grade extortion doesn't mean their negligence couldn't have led to a far more egregious outcome; they should still be held accountable for that in any case. The same number of people need to get off the plane at the end as the number who boarded, or it's their fuckup, Period.

If I were the supreme adjudicator in this kerfuffle, I'd see fit to fine or otherwise penalize the airline and/or its employees (depending on how much the culpability can be narrowed down to a particular crew member or 2 whose responsibility it was to sweep the aircraft), and then donate any punitive proceeds to some local airline safety outreach program or the proverbial airline mechanics' widows fund or whatever, and not award squat to the plaintiff since she's clearly not deserving of any sympathy either. But I certainly wouldn't just say she brought it on herself and then just dismiss the whole thing entirely without meting fault to the airline.

Sorry kiddo, that's how the law works.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 18:12

Post #102 of 115 (1135 views)

Tri-Banter wrote:

And yet all that doesn't allow the airline a pass for failing to execute their duties properly.
---

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. You pay the airlines to fly you from point A to point B safely. Perhaps to provide you with some in-flight refreshments and electronic entertainment. You don't pay them to be your personal babysitter. They get you to your destination and offer you a tiny bag of peanuts along the way, they've done their job. You can't/ won't get your ass off the plane, assuming no major medical malfunctions, that's on you. Getting stuck on a plane is a lesson you shouldn't have to learn the hard way and, if you do, only have to learn it once.

Bingo! It isn't the world's responsibility to care for dipshits with one good leg who are unable to perform the simple tasks expected of adults.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [Crank] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 18:19

Post #103 of 115 (1121 views)

Crank wrote:

OakCliffTri wrote:

... Contrib....

JSA wrote:

40-Tude wrote:

JSA wrote:

I view this from two different lenses: (1) Should the crew have discovered her? Yes. (2) Should the airline bear any liability to her for failing to discover her? No.

Sorry if I'm failing to see how your #2 follows from #1.... What about ...

(1) Should the crew have discovered her? Yes.
(2) Should the airline bear any liability to her for failing to discover her? Yes, because they clearly failed in their duty as pointed out in #1.

As in ...

(1) Should the surgeon have realized the surgical instrument was still in the body cavity and in plain sight? Yes.
(2) Should the surgeon bear any liability for failing to see that? Yes - malpractice claim warranted.

But, the concept of contributory negligence states that if she was the cause of the harm that befell her, her recovery is reduced in the percentage.

I'm going to call you both out because LavRoom:

It's "comparative fault," not "contributory negligence." Contributory negligence is the old and now abandoned theory that prevented any recovery whatsoever if the claimant was even the slightest bit at fault. Comparative fault is the current theory that merely reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's fault.

Carry on, counselors. ;-)

Ah, no. Alabama, DC, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are all pure contributory negligence states.

Several other states still use partial contributory negligence: See, e.g., Section 895.045, Wis. Stats. Contributory Negligence. IL Stats Chapter 735. Civ. Pro. Sec. 5/2-1116. Etc., etc.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 19:47

Post #104 of 115 (1080 views)

JSA wrote:

Crank wrote:

I'm going to call you both out because LavRoom:

It's "comparative fault," not "contributory negligence." Contributory negligence is the old and now abandoned theory that prevented any recovery whatsoever if the claimant was even the slightest bit at fault. Comparative fault is the current theory that merely reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's fault.

Carry on, counselors. ;-)

Ah, no. Alabama, DC, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are all pure contributory negligence states.

Several other states still use partial contributory negligence: See, e.g., Section 895.045, Wis. Stats. Contributory Negligence. IL Stats Chapter 735. Civ. Pro. Sec. 5/2-1116. Etc., etc.

That's great and all, but this incident occurred entirely in Canada, where I'm pretty sure comparative negligence/fault has largely replaced contributory negligence.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 20:12

Post #105 of 115 (1074 views)

slowguy wrote:

JSA wrote:

Crank wrote:

I'm going to call you both out because LavRoom:

It's "comparative fault," not "contributory negligence." Contributory negligence is the old and now abandoned theory that prevented any recovery whatsoever if the claimant was even the slightest bit at fault. Comparative fault is the current theory that merely reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's fault.

Carry on, counselors. ;-)

Ah, no. Alabama, DC, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are all pure contributory negligence states.

Several other states still use partial contributory negligence: See, e.g., Section 895.045, Wis. Stats. Contributory Negligence. IL Stats Chapter 735. Civ. Pro. Sec. 5/2-1116. Etc., etc.

That's great and all, but this incident occurred entirely in Canada, where I'm pretty sure comparative negligence/fault has largely replaced contributory negligence.

Fairly certain that is not accurate. I’m no expert of Canadian law, but these Canadian law firms seems to think it exists.

http://www.dolden.com/...igence-June-2007.pdf

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 20:21

Post #106 of 115 (1066 views)

slowguy wrote:

JSA wrote:

Crank wrote:

I'm going to call you both out because LavRoom:

It's "comparative fault," not "contributory negligence." Contributory negligence is the old and now abandoned theory that prevented any recovery whatsoever if the claimant was even the slightest bit at fault. Comparative fault is the current theory that merely reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's fault.

Carry on, counselors. ;-)

Ah, no. Alabama, DC, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are all pure contributory negligence states.

Several other states still use partial contributory negligence: See, e.g., Section 895.045, Wis. Stats. Contributory Negligence. IL Stats Chapter 735. Civ. Pro. Sec. 5/2-1116. Etc., etc.

That's great and all, but this incident occurred entirely in Canada, where I'm pretty sure comparative negligence/fault has largely replaced contributory negligence.

Yeah, I don't understand the quoting US case law.

Anyhew, I find it just as possible that she wasn't passed out drunk or intentionally hid. I could see her asleep in the back of the plane with her seat belt on. In planes it's just a lap belt. So she could have been in window seat, for example, where she leaning in against the window and not visible under the high seats. It's plausible because they obviously didn't sweep the plane before they left.

Her actions after don't support her being intoxicated. She found a flashlight in the cockpit, opened the door and signaled for help. I'm sure she was questioned beyond the worker that got her out of the plane. And she went on her merry way, so I bet she wasn't f-ed up. Or if she was, it was duly noted.

Last edited by: zed707: Jun 26, 19 20:39

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [zed707] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 21:09

Post #107 of 115 (1036 views)

zed707 wrote:

slowguy wrote:

JSA wrote:

Crank wrote:

I'm going to call you both out because LavRoom:

It's "comparative fault," not "contributory negligence." Contributory negligence is the old and now abandoned theory that prevented any recovery whatsoever if the claimant was even the slightest bit at fault. Comparative fault is the current theory that merely reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's fault.

Carry on, counselors. ;-)

Ah, no. Alabama, DC, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are all pure contributory negligence states.

Several other states still use partial contributory negligence: See, e.g., Section 895.045, Wis. Stats. Contributory Negligence. IL Stats Chapter 735. Civ. Pro. Sec. 5/2-1116. Etc., etc.

That's great and all, but this incident occurred entirely in Canada, where I'm pretty sure comparative negligence/fault has largely replaced contributory negligence.

Yeah, I don't understand the quoting US case law.

Anyhew, I find it just as possible that she wasn't passed out drunk or intentionally hid. I could see her asleep in the back of the plane with her seat belt on. In planes it's just a lap belt. So she could have been in window seat, for example, where she leaning in against the window and not visible under the high seats. It's plausible because they obviously didn't sweep the plane before they left.

Her actions after don't support her being intoxicated. She found a flashlight in the cockpit, opened the door and signaled for help. I'm sure she was questioned beyond the worker that got her out of the plane. And she went on her merry way, so I bet she wasn't f-ed up. Or if she was, it was duly noted.

Just for you: http://www.mondaq.com/...tributory+Negligence

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [zed707] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 21:16

Post #108 of 115 (1033 views)

https://www.siskinds.com/...ributory-negligence/

http://vealelaw.com/...butory-negligence-2/

https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/...Page=true&bhcp=1

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Jun 26, 19 21:42

Post #109 of 115 (1023 views)

JSA wrote:

https://www.siskinds.com/contributory-negligence/

http://vealelaw.com/...butory-negligence-2/

https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/...Page=true&bhcp=1

That's impressive.

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [ In reply to ]

Jun 27, 19 1:49

Post #110 of 115 (985 views)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/...rie...lane-1.4484381

Just days after news broke of a woman being left alone on board an Air Canada flight, another woman has come forward with a similar experience.

Pamela Prescod, a 69-year-old woman from Guelph, Ont. who is visually impaired and has several other health issues, landed at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport on April 6 following a three-month vacation in Barbados.

She needed help filling out the customs forms and required a wheelchair to leave the Air Canada Rouge aircraft, so she says the crew on-board told her to wait in her seat and they would come back to help.

The staff never returned.

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [zed707] [ In reply to ]

Jun 27, 19 1:50

Post #111 of 115 (983 views)

zed707 wrote:

slowguy wrote:

JSA wrote:

Crank wrote:

I'm going to call you both out because LavRoom:

It's "comparative fault," not "contributory negligence." Contributory negligence is the old and now abandoned theory that prevented any recovery whatsoever if the claimant was even the slightest bit at fault. Comparative fault is the current theory that merely reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's fault.

Carry on, counselors. ;-)

Ah, no. Alabama, DC, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are all pure contributory negligence states.

Several other states still use partial contributory negligence: See, e.g., Section 895.045, Wis. Stats. Contributory Negligence. IL Stats Chapter 735. Civ. Pro. Sec. 5/2-1116. Etc., etc.

That's great and all, but this incident occurred entirely in Canada, where I'm pretty sure comparative negligence/fault has largely replaced contributory negligence.

Yeah, I don't understand the quoting US case law.

Anyhew, I find it just as possible that she wasn't passed out drunk or intentionally hid. I could see her asleep in the back of the plane with her seat belt on. In planes it's just a lap belt. So she could have been in window seat, for example, where she leaning in against the window and not visible under the high seats. It's plausible because they obviously didn't sweep the plane before they left.

Her actions after don't support her being intoxicated. She found a flashlight in the cockpit, opened the door and signaled for help. I'm sure she was questioned beyond the worker that got her out of the plane. And she went on her merry way, so I bet she wasn't f-ed up. Or if she was, it was duly noted.

She claims that her seat was in the middle of the plane. Not the back

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [SayHey Kid] [ In reply to ]

Jun 27, 19 17:13

Post #112 of 115 (907 views)

SayHey Kid wrote:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/scarie...lane-1.4484381

Just days after news broke of a woman being left alone on board an Air Canada flight, another woman has come forward with a similar experience.

Pamela Prescod, a 69-year-old woman from Guelph, Ont. who is visually impaired and has several other health issues, landed at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport on April 6 following a three-month vacation in Barbados.

She needed help filling out the customs forms and required a wheelchair to leave the Air Canada Rouge aircraft, so she says the crew on-board told her to wait in her seat and they would come back to help.

The staff never returned.

Well, apparently that's still her fault, since we've been told here repeatedly that the airline evidently has no responsibility to carry out their jobs...

Seriously, this is a great example though ~ Where on the age/ability/nefarious intent spectrum does a passenger have to fall to relieve them of the duty to get their own ass off the plane then, and hold the airline responsible? I keep going back to: The airline should be responsible for clearing their aircraft of everyone that got on board, regardless of whether they need help or not (precisely so its not dependent on any determination of how able-bodied Passenger X is vs Passenger Y).

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]

Jun 27, 19 18:36

Post #113 of 115 (873 views)

OneGoodLeg wrote:

SayHey Kid wrote:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/scarie...lane-1.4484381

Just days after news broke of a woman being left alone on board an Air Canada flight, another woman has come forward with a similar experience.

Pamela Prescod, a 69-year-old woman from Guelph, Ont. who is visually impaired and has several other health issues, landed at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport on April 6 following a three-month vacation in Barbados.

She needed help filling out the customs forms and required a wheelchair to leave the Air Canada Rouge aircraft, so she says the crew on-board told her to wait in her seat and they would come back to help.

The staff never returned.

Well, apparently that's still her fault, since we've been told here repeatedly that the airline evidently has no responsibility to carry out their jobs...

Seriously, this is a great example though ~ Where on the age/ability/nefarious intent spectrum does a passenger have to fall to relieve them of the duty to get their own ass off the plane then, and hold the airline responsible? I keep going back to: The airline should be responsible for clearing their aircraft of everyone that got on board, regardless of whether they need help or not (precisely so its not dependent on any determination of how able-bodied Passenger X is vs Passenger Y).

So, that must mean you are ready to admit the woman in the OP should not fall into the same category as this woman and, as a result, should be held entirely at fault for her own predicament.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Jun 27, 19 19:31

Post #114 of 115 (852 views)

JSA wrote:

Crank wrote:

OakCliffTri wrote:

... Contrib....

JSA wrote:

40-Tude wrote:

JSA wrote:

I view this from two different lenses: (1) Should the crew have discovered her? Yes. (2) Should the airline bear any liability to her for failing to discover her? No.

Sorry if I'm failing to see how your #2 follows from #1.... What about ...

(1) Should the crew have discovered her? Yes.
(2) Should the airline bear any liability to her for failing to discover her? Yes, because they clearly failed in their duty as pointed out in #1.

As in ...

(1) Should the surgeon have realized the surgical instrument was still in the body cavity and in plain sight? Yes.
(2) Should the surgeon bear any liability for failing to see that? Yes - malpractice claim warranted.

But, the concept of contributory negligence states that if she was the cause of the harm that befell her, her recovery is reduced in the percentage.

I'm going to call you both out because LavRoom:

It's "comparative fault," not "contributory negligence." Contributory negligence is the old and now abandoned theory that prevented any recovery whatsoever if the claimant was even the slightest bit at fault. Comparative fault is the current theory that merely reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's fault.

Carry on, counselors. ;-)

Ah, no. Alabama, DC, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are all pure contributory negligence states.

Several other states still use partial contributory negligence: See, e.g., Section 895.045, Wis. Stats. Contributory Negligence. IL Stats Chapter 735. Civ. Pro. Sec. 5/2-1116. Etc., etc.

Screw all your oddball states and their backasswards policies and laws. Come here to California where things are simp... Oh wait. Dang. Y'all probably got your policies and laws set correctly where you are.

Re: Fall asleep on a plane... wake up in an empty plane. [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 19 17:12

Post #115 of 115 (758 views)

JSA wrote:

OneGoodLeg wrote:

SayHey Kid wrote:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/scarie...lane-1.4484381

Just days after news broke of a woman being left alone on board an Air Canada flight, another woman has come forward with a similar experience.

Pamela Prescod, a 69-year-old woman from Guelph, Ont. who is visually impaired and has several other health issues, landed at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport on April 6 following a three-month vacation in Barbados.

She needed help filling out the customs forms and required a wheelchair to leave the Air Canada Rouge aircraft, so she says the crew on-board told her to wait in her seat and they would come back to help.

The staff never returned.

Well, apparently that's still her fault, since we've been told here repeatedly that the airline evidently has no responsibility to carry out their jobs...

Seriously, this is a great example though ~ Where on the age/ability/nefarious intent spectrum does a passenger have to fall to relieve them of the duty to get their own ass off the plane then, and hold the airline responsible? I keep going back to: The airline should be responsible for clearing their aircraft of everyone that got on board, regardless of whether they need help or not (precisely so its not dependent on any determination of how able-bodied Passenger X is vs Passenger Y).

So, that must mean you are ready to admit the woman in the OP should not fall into the same category as this woman and, as a result, should be held entirely at fault for her own predicament.

No, quite the opposite... What I mean is that it shouldn't matter how able-bodied or not the passenger is, since that's a sliding scale w/ no clearly-defined threshold; instead every ticketed passenger falls into the same category, that category being Your Ass Must Be Offa This Bitch Before The Last Employee Closes The Motherfucking Door.

Consider a kid ~ how old is old enough to not need assistance? Whatever number you pick is pretty arbitrary, like a kid is suddenly mature enough to fly alone today cuz he just turned 12 (or whatever), but he REALLY wasn't mature enough only yesterday? And obviously some 10/12-year olds are much more capable than others. Or at the other end of the spectrum, maybe one 70 year-old needs help, but the 80-year-old next to her would beat you to death w/ her cane if you so much as insinuate that she's anything less than fully capable. Or maybe I look like a perfectly capable prime-aged stud (I get that a lot), but actually just had surgery so can't get up and around as well as it appears I should be. Do we all need to fill out a pre-screening questionnaire stipulating that we don't need to be reminded/escorted/cajoled/encouraged to GTFO already when the plane has been gated up?

My point remains that none of that should matter. Of course the flight staff can & should offer/provide assistance to anyone who needs it, but regardless of whether it's needed/appreciated or not they have to ensure that everyone complies with getting the hell off the plane before they turn out the lights. I don't get why that's a hard concept. It doesn't mean I think that the original gal in question deserves any compensation whatsoever for her own predicament, just that the airline still fucked up. Like slowguy said, saying the airline fucked up doesn't mean she's blameless. But again, as a matter of policy/procedure, I'm more concerned w/ the professionals doing their job since I don't expect a planeload of 200 or so random people to not contain a few wingnuts.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.