Back to Squawk list
  • 31

A Passenger Sued Southwest Airlines for Exactly $74,999 and It's Totally Brilliant. Here's Why

You may have heard: A Southwest Airlines passenger is suing Southwest for landing at the wrong airport. It's the kind of case we talked about back in law school, and I was intrigued enough to dig up the court complaint down in Missouri. I've included it at the bottom of this story. But I think the most important line in the entire filing is one most people have missed: "Plaintiff is requesting damages in the amount of $74,999.99 and nothing more." It's an odd number,… ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ThinkingGuy 41
Plaintiff wants to keep the case in (Missouri) state court. Suing for one penny under $75000 blocks Southwest from removing the case to federal court. #SavedYouAClick
Thank you!
CDBrozovich -1
I wonder when I pass from this world if I will truly know if I saved a click or two?
ReverendLee 1
Dōmo arigatōgozaimasu
Randy Marco 5
The article is completely WRONG...

The REAL & ONLY reason the Plaintiff and every knowledgable Plaintiff wants to stay in State Ct is because litigation fees & costs ~triple in Federal Court! Further, any appeal will be in Federal Appeals Ct which will escalate fees & costs to the point you won't be able to afford to litigate the case if you survive the fees & costs in the initial filing court.

People are clueless about litigation. They don't understand that large corporations have a HUGE and unfair advantage in that they routinely attempt to transfer cases to federal court to force the Plaintiff to abandon their case due to the enormous fees & costs.

America should adopt the same legal system Britain has... the loser ALWAYS must pay all Attorney fees & costs of the winning side which is referred to as "English rule". That would allow more money to flow to the Plaintiff and would eliminate most nuisance litigation. Write your Congressperson.
Wouldn't this great idea of yours keep any normal person from filing a lawsuit?
ken young 6
No..It levels the playing field.
IN these Litigious United States, I can sue you for farting too loudly. Now, that is an absurd reason to file a suit. However, even if you win the suit, you lose. Because you had to spend your money to hire an attorney to defend you.
So many suits are filed for the most outrageous of reasons.
Of course Trial Lawyers Associations are 100% opposed to any such changes in the civil court structure. The reason is simple. "Loser Pays" would put a serious dent in their income.
Max Jones 3
"However, even if you win the suit, you lose. Because you had to spend your money to hire an attorney to defend you." Hence the old Yiddish curse: May you be involved in a lawsuit and be in the right.
Randy Marco 2
There are no easy answers to litigation because you never know how the Judge or Jury will rule but it would definitely help you if you have a clear cut tort action and it would definitely stop most all iffy actions unless you are rich and don't mind losing money in filing nuisance actions.
alexa320 Donald Trump you mean?
Move along everyone, no relevant thought going on here.
Tom Bruce 1
might prevent spurious lawsuits...especially those that come out of my home state...Calif
Agree with that! But that seems to be a completely different problem the original poster was trying to solve. One that I think won't be solved by his recommendation.
ken young 1
Ahh, New Jersey is the lawsuit capital of the US.
There are more attorneys per capita in NJ than in any other state.
Its so bad, I think one can be sued just for driving through NJ
Ron Nash 12
When resorting to lawsuits, it always pays to keep in mind, that lawyers are the people who referee the fight - and then keep the purse.
isardriver 1
right on
Tom Bruce 0
good one!
Leon Kay 3
A very good move. I would not mind if a flight that I am on lands at a wrong airport. I would love to own a MUSTANG 5.0 GT CONVERTIBLE 306KW and have money left for fuel!!
Paul Thomas 3
Win airline lawsuits with this ONE WEIRD TRICK!

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Look at the right side of the page and check out the thumbs next to a post.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Which is why I refuse to click on the bait.
My money's on SW settling out of court and probably close to the 74,999.
canuck44 7
"Totally brilliant"? By whose standards. The guy and his ambulance chaser are still sleazy in any court.
You may not like it, the game nor the man...but, he is playing the game brilliantly.
Only if 'brilliantly' means going to hell. There is good advice somewhere about dragging someone to court.
this absurd suit deserves to be tossed out of court, for what real and lasting basis exists for a suit having these facts?. The pilots were able to land without further incident, no harm to passengers, and therefore no foul.The landing gave only two people on this flight any fear at all- and they both sit in the front of the plane. Thanks be given to the manufacturers of the braking system as well as the reversers on the engines. Beyond that there is nothning to discuss.
No, this absurd suit will win in front of 12 idiots too stupid to get out of jury duty. Just ask OJ....same happens every day in MedMal cases...
Randy Marco 3
So you are advocating NOT doing your civic duty and breaking the law... and you are proud of that? You are a big part of what is wrong with this country!
Huh? What did you read? However, I am FIRMLY under the belief that in a MedMal case...a "Jury of a Neurosurgeons peers" would be 12 other neurosurgeons. Not 12 idiots off of the road. In the case of the actions of a pilot, well, his/her peers would be 12 other people with a license to fly. The system is broken - and yes, no one wants to get jury duty. Everyone hates lawyers...that is life.
Randy Marco -1
I read just what YOU wrote, "...too stupid to get out of jury duty." getting out of jury duty is shirking your civic duty and is ILLEGAL.

Not everyone hates Attorney's only those that don't understand law.... and those that think they can commit crimes and torts without repercussions or think "their" flawed idea of what's right and wrong is the right & only way.

If you think peers in a jury should only come from the same work field you have very, VERY flawed thinking because there would be an incentive for those peers to protect others in their same field which would equal the "old boy syndrome" of absolute corruption. I.E. cops protecting cops, Doctor's protecting Doctor's and the current problem of Republicans protecting a totally corrupt president!

I don't hate attorneys, but I disrespect many of them. The profession is infected by a severe distorted moral view. Most attorneys I have had the chance to discuss this with will openly admit that it is not their job to provide the truth, that is, what is real. They feel that their job is to work as hard as they can to get their side to win, and they believe that if they put their faith in the 'system' to ultimately deliver justice, they are morally upright. Even if it means that they purposefully distort, hide, or deny what is real and true.
Either you are not in the US, you are a lawyer (by almost default exempt from Jury duty) or have never been called for Jury duty. My guess, you are a lawyer (who likes to litigate cases such as the one in the topic).
Sam Andrews 2
I like the idea that the plaintiff might want to make it harder for Southwest's lawyers and witnesses to travel to Branson, since they (Southwest) don't fly there anymore.
n9341c 1
I HATE "Click-Bait" Headlines.
Randy Marco 2
Then.... don't click, it's just that simple.
I didn’t!
If any of you read the article the plaintiff stopped flying and had to take a different job that didn't require such and at a lower salary.

[quote]The passenger who sued Southwest, XXXX XXXXXX, lived in the area and had flown into Branson Airport many times, and says he realized well before the plane landed--even if the pilots didn't--they were at the wrong airport, "with a much smaller runway."

He was "immediately struck with fear and anxiety over potentially crashing," according to his lawsuit, and he later "suffered severe mental anguish, fear and anxiety, including a panic attack which caused him to be removed from another airline prior to takeoff."

That in turn led him to stop flying, which meant taking a job that didn't require travel--"at a substantially diminished salary."[/quote][BBcode that probably will not work here]

It seems as if the lawsuit is more than warranted. A mere 40 feet more would have sent the plane over a cliff onto an interstate highway where there would most certainly have been loss of life.

[This poster has been suspended.]

well that's what the courts are for
Rich Boddy 4
So wait, you actually believe this is a warranted lawsuit based on his claims of "fear and anxiety"? Or did I just completely miss your sarcasm? I'm usually pretty good at detecting internet sarcasm but this one is a toughie.
paul gilpin 2
but if you were to compare the wiki photos of branson airport with the smaller taney county airport, you would find that the cliff to be fallen over is not that much of a cliff. they may have driven off the cliff onto the interstate, but not fallen off the cliff.
in addition, if you compare the branson airport to the taney county airport, the branson airport looks like something out of an air america motion picture. cut off the top of a mountain and lets put an airport here. if it's a cliff you want to discuss, let's talk about the branson airport. in either direction.

branson airport:

taney county airport:

as for southwest airlines, i didn't know harrison ford flew for them?
Ha Ha, you're funny.
ken young 1
So you think this plaintiff should prevail for something that DID NOT happen?
According to your logic, we now get to sue and prevail based on "Almost" or "what if"?....
How high do you want the prices for consumer goods and services to rise?
Because if you don't think these suits have an effect on pricing, you're living in a parallel universe.
crk112 0
That site is full of click bait articles. They have an awful lot of articles that end with “and it’s totally brilliant. Here’s why”
crk112 0
Of course ... the “headlines” is what I meant to say lol
sstuff -1
Were I the State Court, I'd throw out the case merely because of the obvious $74,999.99 ploy, sometimes known as "wasting the Court's time." Is the Plaintiff arguing his actual injury (psychological or otherwise) was exactly that amount?

Shakespeare was right in his view of lawyers, even if taken out of context or misinterpreted.
So do we make the threshold $74,999.98? and when you do that, someone will come in at .97. Make it 70K, and then someone will do a penny under that.

So you make it a judgment call. Now that opens up even more floodgates, and challenges that "they got to stay in state court, where I had to be removed to federal."
ken young -1
BS Lawsuit. Plaintiff is looking for a payoff. SWA should settle. And pay this dope $1 a month....
Rollo Tomassi -2
Geezh, I would have been good with a comp ticket or a voucher toward dinner and that is if
I got anything at all. They arrived alive!
ChadRLarson 4
"Arrived alive"! Is that now the minimum standard for commercial air travel?
I was happy when they gave me a packet of drink coupons.


還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!