DL sued over hunting trophy ban

Sidebar
WorldTraveler said:
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
Click to expand...
 
That's a pretty bold statement / prediction.
Maybe a jury would not be all that sympathetic to this guy in NY, SFO and BOS, but pretty much anywhere else he's the victim here.  It isn't whether killing the lion is at trial, (or whatever animal is in question - legally he was OK to do it), but how he was hurt (emotionally and financially, ofcourse) by the trouble he had to ship his trophy after DL screwed him over for no reason.  IMHO anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
if he was harmed, it wasn't DL's fault.

DL didn't put his picture all over the media or boycott his practice.

and you still haven't provided us with a copy of the airway bill.

Kinda hard to argue that DL was at fault for a service it never agreed to provide.


get to work on finding that AWB, ok?
 
It is very difficult to have an intelligent business discussion with somebody that doesn't even have the mental horsepower to read the article, but instead jumps at the chance to defend and worship DL at all times.  
The man in the lawsuit is a different individual than the MSP dentist.  
Talk about a lack of mental horsepower to grasp the issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
WorldTraveler said:
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.
Click to expand...
Airlines successfully limit their liability for consequential damages relating to negligent performance, but that's not the claim in this lawsuit. The plaintiff is alleging a violation of federal law, and I've never seen any company successfully disclaim liability when it violates federal statutes. If you know of a case, please edumacate us.

WorldTraveler said:
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.
Click to expand...
His lawsuit alleges that DL is unlawfully discriminating in the types of cargo accepted for transport, and thus is failing to satisfy US federal law as a "common carrier" and one of the prayers for relief is revoking DL's certificate authority as a common carrier due to its violations.
 
and that is all the more why the case is nothing more than the rant of a loser who made a bad personal decision and is looking for someone to pay for his stupidity.

There are no requirements that DL carry any particular type of cargo. DL can't discriminate against passengers based on gender etc etc but DL can absolutely decide what cargo it wants to carry.

and yes the $350,000 is what he paid for his ticket to go hunting.. .it has nothing to do with any service that DL provided. It is consequential to DL's service.
 
I don't think that Kev is arguing whether the case actually was filed...

but I may be wrong.

It still doesn't change that DL has no obligation to carry any particular type of cargo and that the $350,000 he is seeking is consequential because it was the price of admission to go hunting - which DL had nothing to do wiht.
 
WorldTraveler said:
It still doesn't change that DL has no obligation to carry any particular type of cargo and that the $350,000 he is seeking is consequential because it was the price of admission to go hunting - which DL had nothing to do wiht.
Click to expand...
He cites to federal statutes and a decision of the US Supreme Court that all disagree with you.

Why do you believe he's seeking $350k? Because in the narrative of his complaint he mentioned the $350k he paid?

As others have said, an intelligent discussion with you appears to be impossible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
again, you think it is unintelligent if someone raises an issue which you don't agree with.

Anyone can cite whatever law they THINK gives them the basis for a lawsuit but that hardly makes what they say as factual.

I would have thought you understood that concept.

and what seems to be lost in all of this is that AA and UA passed the same rules within hours.

While you want to think this is a "gotcha DL" case, it is just as significant to AA and UA and other US carriers.


DL has no liability because it committed to carry nothing for him, he has no evidence of it, and DL is not obligated to carry whatever a customer wants - for any number of reasons.


Further his $350,000 is his membership loss. He didn't lose his right to hunt because DL wouldn't carry his trophy. He DID hunt. That's like arguing that a bar should pay for your drinks because you lost your pool game.
 
The case here is why DL thinks they can chose what they carry.

DL does carry other prepared animal hides and artifacts like antlers, etc. from Alaska, so where's the logical argument in banning a subset of species?

If they can pick & choose within a commodity code (and from what I've seen in cargo acceptance documents, there's no distinction in the commodity code used for a large mounted trophy for a deer or moose than there'd be for a rhino or elephant), it's willful discrimination.

If they can pick and choose on what someone can or can't ship based on context, then what's to say that they won't allow shipments of, say, Bibles? Or, to give equal treatment, legal pornography?

Could DL decide that in order to gain business from the New York Times, they won't allow shipments of NY Newsday to be sent as freight?

That's the slippery slope that DL just went down.

For livestock and hazardous materials, DL is indeed free to pick and choose what they carry for liability or safety reasons, but it's not like this is commodity that could place the flight or handlers at risk (i.e. venomous snakes, or cases of muriatic acid), or be at risk itself (certain types of livestock unable to survive transport).

Taken a step further, it's like DL deciding they won't carry athiests or Hindus.

Common carriers simply don't get to project their ethics onto what they accept. That's the whole notion of having a common carrier standing -- anyone can tender a non-hazardous/non-perishable shipment without fear of discrimination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
and again, AA and UA went down the same slope.

DL just happen to have enough of a presence in Africa that they went first.

Airlines selectively choose to carry cargo on a regular basis. can't do that with passengers but they can with cargo.

You have a relatively small group of rich, no very rich, hunters, who want DL to carry their trophies and DL quite simply doesn't have to carry any cargo.

There is no airway bill. He wasn't refused any service that he paid for.


The dentist here wants DL to foot the bill for the protests that sent the dentist in hiding and to provide the revenue he lost while the public, not DL, was protesting on his doorstep.
 
of course...because DL is the carrier that the passenger flew.

but if the charge is that DL is a common carrier and can't selectively choose what cargo it takes, then the same rule will end up applying to AA and UA and WN and everyone else.

the lawsuit will fall on the attempt for damages... If there is any legal question at all, it is whether airlines can choose to carry certain types of cargo or not.

The same commodity codes apply to a trophy on all 3 carriers, regardless of the country of origin.

It is not discrimination for a carrier to choose not to carry a particular type of cargo.

It is discrimination to not serve a customer based on religion, gender etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top Bottom