Rubin v. United Air Lines, Inc.
96 Cal. App. 4th 364, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1645, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 109 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An airline's decision to refuse transport to a passenger under 49 U.S.C. § 44902 is shielded from tort liability if, based on the facts known at the time, the airline personnel had a rational and reasonable basis for believing the passenger was, or might be, a risk to airline safety.
Facts:
- Adrienne Rubin arrived at Los Angeles International Airport for a United Airlines flight to Hawaii, intending to use frequent flyer miles to upgrade her coach ticket to first class.
- Due to a ticketing issue, United agents could not confirm her first-class seat and informed her that all first-class seats were occupied.
- Agents offered Rubin a seat in coach on the scheduled flight or a first-class seat on a later flight, but she insisted on flying first class on her original flight.
- After boarding the plane, Rubin attempted to enter the first-class cabin to see if her desired seat was truly occupied, which alarmed the flight crew.
- Rubin engaged in a loud discussion with the purser and service director, refused to store her luggage as directed, and declined to sit in her assigned coach seat.
- Instead, Rubin sat in an emergency exit row, and after being told to move, she occupied another passenger's seat.
- After Rubin repeatedly disobeyed crew instructions and caused a significant delay and passenger unrest, the flight crew decided to remove her from the plane.
- When Rubin refused to deplane voluntarily, United personnel called airport police, who had to physically carry her off the aircraft.
Procedural Posture:
- Adrienne Rubin filed suit in a state trial court against United Airlines, Inc., alleging various tort claims, including false arrest, false imprisonment, and emotional distress.
- United Airlines moved for summary judgment, arguing its actions were justified under federal law granting it discretion to remove passengers for safety reasons.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines.
- Adrienne Rubin, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an airline's decision to remove a passenger, made pursuant to its authority under 49 U.S.C. § 44902, shield it from state law tort liability if the airline had a reasonable basis at the time to believe the passenger was or might be a risk to safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, Acting P. J.
Yes. An airline's decision to remove a passenger is protected from tort liability if the decision was rational and reasonable based on the facts and circumstances known to the airline at the time. Federal law (49 U.S.C. § 44902) grants airlines broad discretion to refuse to transport a passenger the carrier decides is, or might be, 'inimical to safety.' The court adopted the standard from Williams v. Trans World Airlines, which holds that such decisions must be evaluated based on the information available at the moment, not with the benefit of hindsight. Here, Rubin's actions—including her unauthorized attempt to enter the first-class cabin, repeated and deliberate refusal to follow crew instructions regarding luggage and seating, and her role in creating an unruly onboard atmosphere—collectively provided United Airlines with a reasonable basis to believe she posed a potential safety risk. The airline's decision was therefore not arbitrary or capricious and was justified as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference courts afford to airlines in making real-time safety and security assessments. It clarifies that passenger behavior that directly challenges crew authority over safety protocols, such as seating assignments and luggage stowage, can legally be considered a potential threat justifying removal under federal law. The ruling strengthens an airline's ability to defend against state tort claims by focusing the legal inquiry on the reasonableness of the crew's perception at the time of the incident, rather than on whether the passenger posed an actual, objective threat. This precedent makes it more difficult for passengers removed for disruptive behavior to succeed in lawsuits for false imprisonment or assault.
Unlock the full brief for Rubin v. United Air Lines, Inc.