Originally Posted by RENURPP
You make a sensible decision you can justify based on the current and likely circumstances. That's he best we can do, leave the lawyers to fight the rest out at a later date.
Totally agree, but it's just that given the "current" circumstances are that a passenger has, to be totally blunt, technically assaulted a crew member, I wouldn't like to be the one on the witness stand trying to justify my position.
There are several law firms now that will fight for the plaintiff on a no-win, no-fee proposal.
If the passenger retains one of these ambulance-chasers to sue the PIC personally, as a civil matter, the passenger has got nothing to loose by trying and I can guarantee that the PIC will have $10,000 of legal fees before seeing the inside of a courtroom !
Again, as PIC what you do is your decision and responsibility, but the law applies a "reasonable person" test in many cases, and while your decision not to divert may of seemed reasonable
to you at 40,000 feet, in the cool light of the court-room, will twelve men good and true (who are NOT your flying peers) agree that to not get rid of (by the barristers words) the violent, raging maniac who had already assulted your crew member was a good decision ?
You don't have to justify it to me, or PPRuNe or even yourself (always the easiest
) but one day you may need to justify it to a jury sympathetic to
(as the barrister described the 30-something passenger) the little old lady who was
(as the barrister described the bruised arm and scraped shin) so viscously and callously attacked with no provocation, causing her PTSD, migraines and an inability to sleep.
S_T