Drunk Jailed

[TSR2]

Just heard on the local news that a man from Burnley who's on-board conduct lead to a flight from the Dominican Republic to be diverted to the Bahamas last Christmas, has been jailed for 10 1/2 months.

He admitted being drunk and disorderly on-board and to 'Endangering the safety of the flight'.

I sincerely hope that he is also banned from the skies for life.

However, this case raises an interesting question. Could fellow passengers not sue the airline in question for wilfully allowing a passenger to board who is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. Just a thought.

[phineas]

If he has any money.

A real bottom feeding lawyer would go after the airline, they let him on the flight.

[Shack37]

Why? Was he drunk when boarding? Reprehensible yes and extremely unpleasant but should the airline take all the blame? The old Sue, Grabbit and Run culture is certainly gaining ground.

[Glamgirl]

The man in question may have appeared sober when he boarded. He may have been refused alcohol by the crew, but then drunk his own duty free purchases.

I do think it's a bit OTT though that passengers would even be thinking of suing an airline for this kind of thing. Endangering an aircraft doesn't necessarily mean the guy was going to do anything nasty to the aircraft. It can mean that he wouldn't do as he was told, such as sit down and strap in.

Gg

[The Real Slim Shady]

Where was the court case?

Because in view of the Irby case he could be let off on appeal !

[Final 3 Greens]

Was he obese as well?

[Bealzebub]

They could if they were properly advised that they had any basis for bringing a claim against the airline, and they could quantify the monetary amount of damages they had suffered. However setting aside the subject of frivolous litigation, what do you mean by wilfully allowing a passenger to board who is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft? Are you suggesting the aircraft was endangered by the deliberate and non-accidental actions of the airline? How did the airline staff know that it was likely that this passenger would endanger the safety of the aircraft?

It is unlawful to be drunk on an aircraft, and where a passenger is assesed as being drunk prior to boarding, they should be refused carriage at that time. However it is a judgment call, since there is no way of otherwise being able to measure the level of intoxication of a boarding passenger. In these relatively rare cases, individuals can exhibit a deteriorating standard of behaviour on board such that their behaviour becomes a nuisance and even a threat. In those circumstances the crew will take the course of action that seems most appropriate at the time. The passenger is responsible for their own behaviour, and the airline would have little difficulty in establishing quantifiable damages for which it might well seek recovery. Other passengers might also seek such recovery (if any meaningful sums could be proven, let alone recovered,) against the perpetrator.

However an airline would not wilfully seek to endanger the safety of its aircraft. It might be possible to show that it negligently contributed to that result, but I think it would be a very steep upward struggle to prove that case. In any event for anybody so minded they would need to seek professional advice in respect of their case. The last thing this or any airline would want, or even remotely court, would be the costs, disruption and disturbance that an event like this, inevitably causes.

[Bealzebub]

Because in view of the Irby case he could be let off on appeal !

I doubt it. That was a recent jury trial and aquittal at Crown court, not an appeal court, supreme court, or house of lords ruling. This doesn't therefore set a legal precedent. miss Irby was found not guilty by a jury of her peers. Many of these offenders are not so lucky, and risk incarceration as a result.



Socialite appears in court charged with being drunk on an aircraft
Heiress charged over drunken jumbo jet romp
Air rage incident sparked by model 'catching boyfriend in compromising position'

But the jury of eight men and four women at Isleworth Crown Court, west London, took just 40 minutes to unanimously find her not guilty of being drunk on board an aircraft.

Tube party organiser was City banker Miss Irby, 30, of Fulham, west London, smiled and looked at the ceiling as the jury foreman read out the verdict.

She stood in the dock fighting back tears before putting her hand on her chest and later wiping tears from her face.

During the three-day trial, mother-of-one Irby denied being drunk, saying she was suffering from sleep deprivation after getting only two and a half hours' sleep in 48 hours.

She said she had only drunk "four or five" glasses of wine and was "tipsy" but not drunk and had full control of her faculties.

Miss Irby mouthed "Oh my God" to her mother, Emma, who was sitting in the public gallery to the side of the court when she was acquitted.

[TSR2]

Good post and I take your point about how are the airline staff likely to know that this passenger would have endangered the safety of the aircraft.

My question was basically hypothetical in that if an airline knowingly allows a drunk passenger to board, could there possibly be any legal repercussions against the airline from fellow passengers in the event of subsequent problems in flight. I do realise that it is difficult to define 'drunk' but for the sake of this question read 'legless'.

I must state that I am not inferring that this was situation in the case of the jailed passenger.

[rgbrock1]

I won't name the airline but on a recent flight my wife and I took from STT to CLT
there was an obviously extremely intoxicated passenger on the security line at STT who couldn't even fill out his customs form without help. As he was on the line he was staggering about and muttering incoherently. He managed, somehow, to get through the security check-in. As we waited at the gate for boarding one of the security apparatchiks approached the gate and pointed out Mr. Drunk to the airline rep. located there. She then disappeared outside to, presumably, the aircraft. She returned about 10 minutes later with one of the FA's of the flight, pointing out Mr. Drunk to said FA.
Upon boarding the aircraft Mr. Drunk was right behind us and was allowed to proceed , stumbling all the way to the aircraft.

[Dazbo5]

However, this case raises an interesting question. Could fellow passengers not sue the airline in question for wilfully allowing a passenger to board who is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. Just a thought.
Without saying too much, I losely know the guy involved. He's (was) the boyfriend of a friend. The flight was delayed so they had a few drinks in the bar but wasn't too drunk for the flight at that point. When on the flight, he carried on drinking and also consumed duty free bought from the airport. Cabin crew were unaware of that so you can't put any blame on them or the airline. He caused a lot of grief for those travelling with him and the other passengers on the aircraft. Personally, he deserves everything he gets.

[TightSlot]

but wasn't too drunk for the flight at that point

In whose judgement - what I mean is that this is a subjective judgement and as such, the assessment will vary from person to person. How drunk is too drunk? Is any kind of drunken behaviour too drunk? The ANO appears to prohibit more or less any level of intoxication

The problem is that staff have to guess, based on experience and a rapid assessment with the sword of on-time performance hanging over their head: Usually the decision is correct - sometimes it isn't. More usually, the decision is correct for some people on board and incorrect for others.

No doubt many disagree, but in my view the blame really lies with a sick society that views massive alcohol consumption on a regular basis as socially acceptable, and even amusing. In my time, I've served British people of all ages and social classes with amounts of alcohol that made my eyes water - they didn't even blink. As I said, that's just me and I accept that I am in a minority here.