why does everyone in the comments assume she is not suing the pervert as well?

what a terrible thing to happen to someone.

ew

Must...not...make..."Snakes on a Plane" joke...

Lucie, that assumption is made because the article mentions only the lawsuit against the airline.

And it seems that many of the commenters are not quite making that assumption, they are just saying they don't think the airline is responsible, and the perverted bastard who committed the crime is the only person who should be paying, whether or not he actually was sued.

Not necessarily agreeing with them, just saying.

Those comments are unbelievable. Mainly this one:

"I'm not surprised at all by this. Maybe if airlines would do something about the steep decline in attractiveness of their stewardesses over the years, then guys would stop feeling the need to do this to innocent fellow passengers."

I hope they were joking. :/

This one is bad to:

"I hope the airline prevails. They're
no more responsible for the man's eccentricities than for the girl's.

Has nobody ever (deliberately) sneezed
on her ? Of course not. That never happens
in a typical american's tv-reality world."

I am going to stop reading them now.

The pervert was arrested when the plane landed. Sure she can sue him in civil court but that certainly isn't going to be resolved until the criminal is, which may take some time.

She's smart to sue the deeper pocket (american) because my guess is the sleezebag won't have any $$ left once he's done paying for his criminal defense attorney.

I refuse to read comments. Does nothing but cause a headache.

I have a hard time faulting the other passengers. With the air pressure change, sounds of the plane engine, and those air blowers going all the time, I'm effectively deaf on a plane. Also, I'm guilty of having tunnel vision when I travel, just wanting to get to my destination. If something happens on the plane, I tend to prefer to get to where we're going, then take care of any problems. However, I would draw the line of getting involved way, way before witnessing another passenger masturbating on an unsuspecting women.

I had a similar experience (though nowhere near as disgusting) as the woman in the OP. The man sitting next to me (a complete stranger) kept trying to kiss me and hold my hand during the flight. There were no other unoccupied seats, so I couldn't move somewhere away from him. I didn't raise a fuss because I just wanted to get home and was afraid that if I said anything, the pilot would land early.

I finally just sat on my hands and leaned away from the guy next to me until he caught the hint that I wasn't interested, and he pouted the rest of the flight. Other passengers saw this, but they followed my lead in not making a huge deal out of it. The flight attendant had no idea and I didn't tell her because I doubt there was anything she could do that I wasn't already doing.

My situation is unlike the OP in that I was fully awake and able to defend myself. It does make me wonder how much responsibility over sleeping passengers the airlines has. I know it's illegal in most places to fall asleep on public transportation because cities and states don't want to be responsible for what may happen to passengers who are completely vulnerable because they are unconscious.

I'm also wondering how covertly the guy masturbated and how often the flight attendants patrol the aisle. I'm not saying that the airlines shouldn't be sued, if only to make them more sensitive to the reality that situations like this can and do happen. It might make them more vigilant to any suspicious behavior.

I understand that she is going after the deeper pockets in her suit against the airlines, but I'm not convinced of her argument that they should've better protected her against this scumbucket. People switch seats all the time, and unless the attendants actually saw some mis-behavior, I can't hold the airline accountable.

How could she have switched seats? She was asleep.

A disgusting episode (it would have been great if she could have done something to the perv like Pam Spaulding described here:

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/03/16/woman-sues-over-perv-passenger-next-to-her-on-flight/

But having done a lot of flying in the past few years, I can't totally fault the airline flight crew. According to the reports, she was unable to get the attention of the crew (which is the actual basis of her lawsuit). Did she just ring the call button, or did she do something more (like shouting, which is what I'd have done!) The plane had begun its descent for landing, and at that point, the flight attendants are to be strapped into their own seats. A passenger ringing for an attendant at that moment might well be ignored if there's only minutes left before landing - it's probably SOP. As in, "whatever it is can wait for a few minutes until we land", which is not an unreasonable assumption for a flight crew to make.

It's disgusting, the perv should be locked up *and* sued into bankruptcy, but without further details, it seems like she's going after the airline just for their "deep pockets" and hoping for a payday.

The issue isn't so much that seats were changed but that she was violated. The flight attendants had the power to stop this and they did not. Even on large flights I've often seen people reprimanded by attendants for talking too loudly, drinking too much, or failing to be in their seats when the skies are turbulant. Also, we've all heard about the women who was dressed "inappropriately" on a flight. This shows that airlines feel they have the right to monitor the behavior of those flying with them. Apparently, though, only when they feel like it.

Airlines owe customers a safe environment. Legally, whether or not the flight attendants had knowledge of what was happening might not matter.

I'm just surprised at the number of people who think that flight attendants couldn't possibly be aware of what passengers are doing. Yes, they're busy. But we expect them to keep us safe in many ways. If the man had been assembling a bomb in his seat would we throw our hands up in the air and say, oh, well, those flight attendants are too busy to notice that.

But this has to do with the assault of a woman and not with terrorism. So on second thought, I'm not at all surprised.

I see. It's never the airlines' responsibility to monitor the behavior of its passengers, unless of course a passenger is commiting the degrading crime of breastfeeding an infant, or dressing in an outfit the flight attendants consider "inappropriate." Then the flight attendants are all over it -- protecting the other passengers from having to see an infant's head pressed against its mother's bosom, or the knees, thighs, and perhaps cleavage of a woman passenger.

Yes, she was violated, and that is terrible. The flight attendants had the power to stop it, but to sue over this issue we must assume that they are *legally responsible* for being aware of every covert behavior that is going on in a flight, and monitoring every seat-changer throughout the flight in case he starts masturbating. So I think that *as far as suing goes*, the issue is not whether she was violated, but whether or not the airline staff were being reasonably vigilant against misbehavior.

Joe, I don't see where you can draw the conclusion that her inability to get the attention of the attendants is the "actual basis" for her lawsuit from the news reports. They are really terrible at reporting on legal issues. If you're getting it somewhere else, what is your source?

Also, the flight crew doesn't necessarily have to be at fault for the airline to be liable.

"If the man had been assembling a bomb in his seat would we throw our hands up in the air and say, oh, well, those flight attendants are too busy to notice that."

I think that this is a really good point, Geek. Even if the plane is landing the attendants have a responsiblity to keep passengers safe, which includes being aware of what the other passengers are doing.

JoeMax: "Did she just ring the call button, or did she do something more (like shouting, which is what I'd have done!)"

It seems like you are blaming the victim.

"but to sue over this issue we must assume that they are *legally responsible* for being aware of every covert behavior that is going on in a flight, and monitoring every seat-changer throughout the flight in case he starts masturbating."

That's a huge exaggeration. Reasonable care is a long-established standard for negligence, and generally doesn't include that kind of watchful eye. Whether the airline exercized reasonable care is a question of fact and that is exactly why we have courts of law.

I have been in exactly this position myself, although not in an airplane. (I was in a Starbucks.) I'd say it IS pretty likely that the flight crew had no idea what was going on, and blaming them for this jerk's perversion is unfair. HE should be arrested and sued, but I don't see airline liability any more than I saw that the staff of the Starbucks were liable (They had no idea either).

Also, the poster earlier that said that the FA's could not get out of their seat if they were in landing mode was absolutely right. Once the captain tell them to prepare for landing, they can not get up, so I would say it was pretty legitimate for them to wait to deal with her til they got on the ground.

All that said, the jackass who did this needs jail. NOW.

"Joe, I don't see where you can draw the conclusion that her inability to get the attention of the attendants is the "actual basis" for her lawsuit from the news reports."

I'm assuming (maybe that's wrong) that she's claiming the airline employees were negligent. Otherwise, what's the basis for the suit? If a perv flashes somebody in a public park, are the beat cops negligent if they don't show up in time to thwart it because their job demanded they be somewhere else at that exact moment in time? That's why I wondered exactly what the circumstances were. If all she did was ring the call button during the landing procedure while the crew is required by law to be strapped in themselves, that's not negligence on the part of the crew. If on the other hand, she stood up in her seat and yelled, "Hey flight crew! There's a pervert jerking off next to me!" and they just blew her off, that's different. Same as with the changing of seats - passengers change seats all the time on a less-than full flight. I've done it myself. Is a flight attendant supposed to always assume ill intent if someone changes their seat? "Excuse me sir, are you changing your seat so you can jerk off next to another passenger?"

Comparing it to flight attendants responding to a bomb threat or something similar is disingenuous. No one was in danger of their lives. It's disgusting but not life threatening.

The perp was an asshole who deserves to be severely punished and sued. But that doesn't automatically mean the flight crew was at fault.

JoeMax, the suit doesn't have to be based on whether they responded to the call after she had already been assaulted.

As I've said, and I'm starting to feel like I'm repeating myself, we don't have to blame the flight crew in order to hold the airline responsible. That could be a basis for the suit, among others. There are probably several allegations and more than one "basis."

Disingenuous? Let's not fling insults, all right? I was talking about the level of alertness we expect from the flight crew and how the general public will be quick to blame on one hand, while coming up with all kinds of excuses for a different kind of situation.

“Comparing it to flight attendants responding to a bomb threat or something similar is disingenuous. No one was in danger of their lives. It's disgusting but not life threatening.�
Eh? The point is, people are claiming flight attendant can’t be expected to notice what passengers are doing. (Which is bullshit of course, as someone mentioned up thread they seem to take notice of skimpy outfits and nursing women). Anyhow, whether or not the situation is life threatening is beside the point. If they can’t be expected to notice some asshole jerking off on a woman’s hair, how can they be expected to notice someone assembling a bomb? The point is they are supposed to be diligent enough to notice…

If they can’t be expected to notice some asshole jerking off on a woman’s hair, how can they be expected to notice someone assembling a bomb?

A person can jack off under a blanket while pretending to be asleep. I've even heard tell of couples masturbating one another under airplane blankets while feigning sleep and they didn't get caught.

I assume assembling a bomb would require one's eyes to be open and parts laid out.

But I agree that they should be more diligent to public indecency that can be subtle.

The woman didn't wake up as the man next to her masturbated, therefore, I (again) assume that he was being quiet and inconspicuous about it. I agree with the suit, if only it will help protect women from similar experiences.

"...we don't have to blame the flight crew in order to hold the airline responsible. That could be a basis for the suit, among others. There are probably several allegations and more than one "basis.""

Well, according to this news report, the basis well defined:

"A 21-year-old Harris County woman filed a $200,000 lawsuit against American Airlines alleging employees on a flight to Los Angeles from Dallas/Fort Worth Airport failed to protect her while she slept from another passenger who masturbated to her and ejaculated in her hair, according to a lawsuit she filed last week in Tarrant County."

http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2008/03/woman-files-law.html

Unless there's some other definition of "employees on a flight", as distinct from corporate policy makers, ground and ticketing crews, or the executives of the airline that monitor the rules and procedures for passenger protection from perverts, it seems pretty clear cut to me: she's blaming the flight crew.

And I would imagine that flight crew might be demoted or lose their jobs over it if the plaintiff prevails and wins her 200 grand. At the risk of being labeled a concern troll, is that fair?

Geek, my point is that when it comes to the crew's responsibilty, *what* happened is not the whole issue; we also need to know how obvious the action was. Using a bomb analogy still does not quite address this issue. Say a man was so good at putting bombs together, that he could do it under a blanket while appearing to be asleep. Now, nevermind how he got the materials on board, as we're discussing onflight behavior here. Would you say the airline was not doing its job if it failed to notice this? Since we do not know how obvious the pervert's assault was, or how the victim tried to alert the crew, it's difficult to say (on this blog, not in court obviously) that the airline was being negligent.

I love how everyone is very confident in their conclusion as to whether the airline was responsible or not.

Of course, this is disgusting and I feel sorry for the poor woman involved. Was the airline liable or not? We'll see. It depends on what the law has to say about how far the airline's duty extends to prevent this sort of thing from happening. The jury will hear about the details of the case and the judge will give them instructions regarding what the law says. The weird thing is, if the woman is asleep, does that mean that the guy is the only witness for most of the time?

These issues always seem to bring out strong reactions on both sides. A post criticizing those already condemning the woman seems appropriate. But let's not go to far to assume that she will or even ought to win this case. I don't think it's that clear cut to me.

"A person can jack off under a blanket while pretending to be asleep."
Yeah, but how can you ejaculate on another persons head in that manner? Shouldn't her head also be under his blanket?

Yeah, but how can you ejaculate on another persons head in that manner?

I thought it would be more of a catch it in the hand and flick/wipe it. Or push back the blanket at the last minute.

I highly doubt that he was standing or kneeling on the seat and jacking off directly into her hair. If that's the case, I'd say the woman has a case for the rest of the passengers on the plane.

I'm with JoeMax on this. I dont care what the law says, the law is wrong if if says that an airline is responsible for every single bad act committed by a passenger (which is how some of you are interpreting this).

If there's some kind of smoking gun memo that comes out showing that the crew saw the masturbation and did nothing, then sue them. If there are passengers on the plane who testify that the airline crew ignored her calls for help, then sue them.

My hunch is that neither of those things occurred, and in that case the airline should not be held responsible.

A guy can masturbate and ejaculate in the span of 30 seconds flat. My guess is that the lights were out and there were lots of people sleeping and thats why nobody noticed.

The guy should go to jail and lose everything he has, but the airline should not be held responsible here unless one of hte scenarios I described above comes to light.

Sometimes bad shit happens and you need to actually hold the person who actually committed the act responsible instead of looking for vicarious liabilities on the part of others simply because they have a lot of money.

Is the city of new york resonsible for every single lewd act committed on a subway? I dont think thats what the law says, because otherwise the city would go broke paying out millions in lawsuits every month.

JoeMax, the suit doesn't have to be based on whether they responded to the call after she had already been assaulted.

As I've said, and I'm starting to feel like I'm repeating myself, we don't have to blame the flight crew in order to hold the airline responsible. That could be a basis for the suit, among others. There are probably several allegations and more than one "basis."

Disingenuous? Let's not fling insults, all right? I was talking about the level of alertness we expect from the flight crew and how the general public will be quick to blame on one hand, while coming up with all kinds of excuses for a different kind of situation.

Well said, tinfoil hattie.

And I'm sorry, if I pay hundreds of dollars for a flight, I do think that there is a reasonable expectation not to be jacked-off on. Call me crazy.

And $200,000 is nothing, folks---probably enough to cover legal fees. The airline probably tried to brush her off; ever been overbooked? Right. This woman is simply making a statement.

Well I posted this comment over at Pandagon, but it looks like it would be useful here too:

As this was on an airplane, I am not sure if there are Federal laws that control, but based on the article it looks like they are making a claim under Texas law. The initial question is what duty the airline owed to prevent the actions of one of its passengers. The closest analogy I can think of (and one one that the plaintiffs counsel seems to be making in the article) is to the duty a premises owner owes to invitees on its land.

As a general rule, a landowner has no legal duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party who is not under the landowner’s control or supervision. See Timberwalk Apartments,Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749, 756 (Tex. 1998); To the extent that the law does impose a duty, the threshold issue is whether the riskof harm was foreseeable. See Timberwalk, 972 S.W.2d at 756; Walker, 924 S.W.2d at 377.

The Texas Supreme Court has indicated that in order to impose a duty the criminal acts have to be forseable. In order to determine whether a crime is is foreseeable the court looks at: (1) whether any criminal conduct previously occurred on or near the property; (2) how recently it occurred; (3) how often it occurred; (4) how similar the conduct was to the conduct on the property; and (5) what publicity the occurrences received to show that the landowner knew or should have known about them. See Timberwalk, 972 S.W.2d at 757-58.

The upshot of of Timberwalk and the cases that follow it is that the landowner has to be on notice of similar prior crimes and therefore will have a duty to use reasonable care to protect people from such crimes. Therefore if this is the standard that is applied then the first question is whether the airline had had any prior similar incidents, how many, how often.

Assuming a duty is imposed there will still be the question of reasonable care.

While the plaintiff did not sue the perpetrator, almost certainly the airline will join him as at least a responsible third party and his responsibility will be submitted to the jury. I dislike this aspect Texas law because it compares intentional conduct with negligent conduct. On one hand the intentional actor is 100% responsible for their acts. On the other is the issue of whether someone should have prevented the intentional act (while there does not seem to be any real argument of comparative fault in this case, if you sues a landowner for not using reasonable care to stop a crime, it opens you up to whether you used reasonable care to have stopped the crime)

In the end as between the passenger and the airline, assuming a duty is imposed on the airline, the issue as to recover really should be who should bear the risk of the insolvency of the perpetrator.

Urgghhh, and I've always craved being able to fall asleep in flight, like "Suzie Lightning," the woman about whom Warren Zevon wrote a song beginning, "She only sleeps on planes..." Never again will I consider myself lucky to doze off!

Well now I am really curious as to what kind of legal duty of care an airline has to its passengers, so I did some very quick research on Lexis but all I found was a few cases about people being injured by their tray tables. I'm guessing most of these cases settle out of court. If the airline is smart, thats what they will do here. Not exactly good press.

I see what some of you are saying, but it IS their job to monitor things going on during the flight. That's why they are there.

And they do that. If you spend too long in the bathroom, they'll ask you to hurry up. If you open your window for natural light during the flight's simulated night period, someone will swoop in and make you shut it. If someone tries to sneak up into business or first class, they DEFINITELY notice.

So why is it so unreasonable to expect them to take note of passengers changing seats, and whether or not they seem to be doing it for a legitimate reason?

In fact, this has happened to me. I moved to a completely empty row on a seven hour flight, and one of the flight attendants told me not to do it without asking permission.

A man moving to a seat next to a young, sleeping woman, and then positioning himself in such a way that no one could tell what he was doing? (I don't think he was doing it under a blanket, because the suit says she woke up to find him masturbating in front of her.) It's perfectly possible that this guy wouldn't have done it if someone had tapped him on the shoulder and gone, "Excuse me, sir, but was something wrong with your assigned seat?"

I'd also like to point out that a passenger in the row in front of her comforted her. If they had already been strapped in for descent, someone in the row in front of her wouldn't be able to turn around and talk to her.

Thanks, Antinome. I was thinking of the business invitee situation, as well. But I'm a paralegal, so I don't like to get into more than generalities. There were interesting cases with international flights and passengers suing under international laws, but not much in the US with a quick search.

What is really frustrating me, though, more than the legal argument, is the idea that she shouldn't even get to sue because the airlines shouldn't be responsible at all.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think anyone said that she shouldn't be allowed to sue. People are questioning where responsibility lies, but I didn't see anyone trying to deny her right to go to court.

I think I phrased that badly. Not that she shouldn't have a right to sue, but that she shouldn't be suing the airline.

JoeMax@10:53
"It's disgusting, the perv should be locked up *and* sued into bankruptcy, but without further details, it seems like she's going after the airline just for their "deep pockets" and hoping for a payday."

thedessie@11:33
"I'd say it IS pretty likely that the flight crew had no idea what was going on, and blaming them for this jerk's perversion is unfair. HE should be arrested and sued, but I don't see airline liability any more than I saw that the staff of the Starbucks were liable (They had no idea either)."

MedicalStudent29@12:32
"Sometimes bad shit happens and you need to actually hold the person who actually committed the act responsible instead of looking for vicarious liabilities on the part of others simply because they have a lot of money."

And I would imagine that flight crew might be demoted or lose their jobs over it if the plaintiff prevails and wins her 200 grand. At the risk of being labeled a concern troll, is that fair?

Not necessarily. I'd think they need to examine in-air procedures.

If I'm TRAPPED in a cylinder at 30,000 feet with no option to leavr for the duration of the flight, I do expect a reasonable amount of protection. Yes, I'm sure that's crazy.

Also, when this sort of thing happens to you, there is often a delay time between observing and processing. When you're on the subway platform and some dude shakes a tiny penis in your direction, it's not so surprising because you almost expect this in a deserted area. On the other hand, if you wake on a plane getting ready to land, with a visible penis in the seat next to yours, that can take up to 2 minutes for the "WTF??!" to travel from your brain to your reflexes (you don't seriously expect someone to pull this on a flight with others in proximity?). Add to this the slightly surreal atmosphere due to the altitude in this small room, and you may need even more time to be sure this is actually happening. If you do make an instant scene and you were wrong, there are of course other consequences.

Somewhere it was mentioned that she may have had her head down on the seat next to the one he occupied. Is this the case? Ugh.

If someone tries to sneak up into business or first class, they DEFINITELY notice.

Great point. First/business has a separate crew. Although they pay extra for the privilege, it still shows that careful observation can prevent this sort of thing.

"Sometimes bad shit happens and you need to actually hold the person who actually committed the act responsible instead of looking for vicarious liabilities on the part of others simply because they have a lot of money."

Hmm.. There are a few things very wrong with that sentence. But let’s start with this one: Yeah, sometimes bad shit happens, you get in car accidents, you miss the bus, you slip and fall on ice, you get ejaculated on by strangers on an airline flights… nothing out of the ordinary.

He didn't even have the decency to mile-high himself in the bathroom?

I'm surprised this isn't Southwest. If it was they'd probably say she deserved it because she was wearing something sexy or something.

Good grief, this happened last year on another flight as well:
http://wcco.com/topstories/Northwest.Airlines.NWA.2.365590.html

I agree wholeheartedly with prairielily. When one boards a plane, it it reasonable to expect not to be sexually assaulted.

Also: EEEEEWWWWWWWWWW!!! I was asleep on an AA flight just this weekend.

Well, IIRC from the article, she woke up to the announcement that they were getting ready to land. In my experience, that means that the FAs are going to be walking around making sure tray tables and chairs are in the upright position and that people need to make sure their seatbelts are fastened. And so on.

The FAs, again, in my experience, don't get strapped in until the last, maybe, 5 minutes.

So it's not unreasonable to expect them to have noticed or had a clue, unless it was a tinytiny plane.

This is the first I've heard of this, highly disturbing. Good luck to her suing the airline!

I don't think it's at all unresonable to expect airline staff to uphold a reasonable duty of care to its paying customers. What's is the point of having air stewards if they're not there to help whilst patroling the plane when in the air?!

I'm actually finding it quite difficult to understand the view point that the airline shouldn't be held accountable on any level! Aside from the disgusting realisation that someone was masterbating over you ...the next realisation, after discovering semen in your hair, that this was that persons second or third go...Uuurrgh! How long was this going on for!?
Something suspicious must have been noticed, and if the air crew were too embaressed or for what ever reason didn't approach then that is not the womans fault as it should not have been an issue. On the other hand if they didn't notice anything suspicious I think that's speaking volumes on the degree of personal safety offered to us by these companies.

Too bad she didn't whip out a cell phone with camera and take a picture of the pervert. Remember several years ago the young woman who took a pic of the perv who was flashing her on the NYC subway. The jerk had his picture plastered in every newspaper and on every news channel in the city.

for some reason i dont think a lawsuit against the airline is particularly smart. she clearly wants money out of it. not that i blame her, but i find it extraordinarily hard to believe that someone saw and didnt say anything. lawsuits in this country have gone completely out of control.