DL sued over hunting trophy ban

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,986
9,425
Interesting case. Claims that DL is discriminating against a legal shipment...

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/10/dallas-man-who-paid-350000-to-hunt-black-rhino-sues-delta-over-ban-on-shipping-trophies.html/#more-32203

What makes it more interesting is the fact that DL *and other airlines* had knee-jerk reactions to the "Cecil the lion" kerfuffle last month, and now it's been proven that all the permits were indeed in place, and it was a legal & authorized kill.

Also puts a slightly different spin on the notion of "changing the rules on a whim" which apparently is bad when it impacts DL, but justified when it appeases social justice warriors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
When DL and AA and the rest quickly banned certain animal trophies, I wondered why anyone would entrust their very expensive hide/head/trophy to an airline (sorry, Mr Dentist, we can't seem to find your big game trophy - here's a few hundred dollars).

At the time, I remember reading a news article where the reporter asked FedEx and UPS if they would ship animal trophies from Africa and one of them said "no way" and the other said "sure - we don't get into the politics of the shipment." Can't remember which of the air freight haulers was friendly to Lion, Rhino and Leapard Murderers, but if you can afford a big game hunt, then wouldn't you rather pay one of the freight airlines and not DL or AA to reliably ship your kill back home?
 
Put that way, if you can afford big game, you can probably afford a private jet to haul you and your trophy there and back...

Still, will be interesting to see if a common carrier can refuse a subset of a commodity they already accommodate.

If they handle some trophy kills, but not others (which all had legal permits from both an export and import perspective), then there may be a valid discrimination argument here given their common carrier status.
 
E, I may be wrong, but under U.S. law I don't think it matters if the government of Backward Upriver issues you a hunting license.  If the kill is an endangered species as defined by accepted agencies, it is illegal to import the spoils into the United States.  For instance, elephants are severely endangered.  You can not import anything made of "real" ivory into the U.S.  (May be an exception for proven antique items, but I don't think so.)
 
I had a good laugh at Customs years ago when the pompous couple ahead of me in line were threatening to have the Customs Agent fired for confiscating their genuine ivory antique.  When it was determined that it was made of plastic, they got it back. 
 
Agree in part, Jim. USFWS has to issue an import certificate before it's even accepted for shipment.

In the case of the litigants, they had the permits from FWS for the species they were hunting.

FYI, the ivory ban doesn't apply to sports hunted trophies. If you downed an elephant that you had a permit from, it's legal for you to bring the ivory into the US.

http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html

And yes, antiques have an exception, depending on when it was acquired.
 
will go nowhere... but if it does, send the case to a jury and see how fast the dentist ends up paying for legal fees and court costs.

There is absolutely no jury of Americans that is going to agree that a doctor or anyone else that can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hunt in a foreign company is being harmed in the least by being unable to ship its catch on an airline.

and then you have the legal issue that DL has absolutely no connection or responsibility with what someone paid to get into the hunt. Goes right up with the consequential damages part of the conditions of carriage clause that is part of every airline and transportation company. They get you there but have no liability if you miss, are delayed, or cannot do what you bought a ticket to go do. iow, what you do after you get off the plane is not an airline's responsibility.
 
WorldTraveler said:
There is absolutely no jury of Americans that is going to agree that a doctor or anyone else that can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hunt in a foreign company is being harmed in the least by being unable to ship its catch on an airline.
 
Don't be so sure about that.  Usually a good lawyer will get a sympathetic jury.
 
Don't be so sure about that.  Usually a good lawyer will get a sympathetic jury.
Airlines and other common carriers have long been able to limit their liability to anything other than the basic transportation that they sell.

This guy is suing an airline because his membership became ineffective because he couldn't ship his hunting trophy back? will go nowhere.
 
Since FF quoted him...

There is absolutely no jury of Americans that is going to agree that a doctor or anyone else that can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hunt in a foreign company is being harmed in the least by being unable to ship its catch on an airline.
By that logic, it's no different from expecting any jury to agree that the most profitable airline (evah) is somehow irreparably harmed by not having the ability to serve an airport just 8 miles away from another airport that they're already serving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
There is no law that any carrier has to carry any type of cargo and they also aren't responsible for damages not related to direct transportation of persons and cargo.

There are laws that require airports that receive federal funds and participate in the federal aviation system to accommodate airlines that meet requirements and ask for it.

The latter has been fully discussed and isn't the least related to the topic here.
 
WorldTraveler said:
Airlines and other common carriers have long been able to limit their liability to anything other than the basic transportation that they sell.

This guy is suing an airline because his membership became ineffective because he couldn't ship his hunting trophy back? will go nowhere.
 
There has got to be a lawyer somewhere that may just be willing to get a jury to be sympathetic to how a big evil corporation (DL) and special interests screwed over the little guy (his innocent client - after all he had all the legal paperwork). 
Afterall, you were claiming on the WN forum that juries all over the USofA love the underdog (DL in it's epic struggle against dominant WN at DAL).  
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
A dentist in MSP who spent $350,000 just to have the right to go kill a lion is and won't ever be seen as an underdog by any representative jury anywhere in the world.

But it will never get to a jury because airlines have consistently and successfully limited their liability for any consequential damages related to the services they provide or do not.

If the rich, spoiled dentist had an airway bill for transportation that was cancelled, then there might be even the basis for a conversation. Companies can't be held liable for services that they never agreed to provide.