But it is not “my” car on that day. Right? I mean, I own the greater title to the car, but you paid to use it for one day. Like Northern Piper discussed above, property rights are a bundle of sticks. I can keep all of them or alienate all or some of them. I can keep everyone out of my house, have a community party and invite everyone, alternatively invite only a few friends, or lease a back bedroom.
In our analogy, I have title to the car, such that it cannot be sold, set on fire, or structurally altered (spinnin’ rims, baby!). But I have agreed to allow you to use the car on that one day for a reasonable price. If you are in my car, you are not trespassing, and I don’t see any justification for forcibly removing you from the car. Nor should any police officer do so acting upon my request. It is YOUR car on that day. I “sold” it to you for your use.
Let’s take it a step further and say that I actually sold you the car. You pay $15,000, I sign the title, give you the keys, and you drive off. I say, “Wait. I changed my mind.” Would you argue that you should take it up with civil court and that I am only ejecting a trespasser? I think not. It is clearly your car.
But at that point, I would show the Police the title with my name on it.
I just don’t see a scenario where I loan you the car, sign a contract, and then change my mind, where the police say “Sorry, you signed a contract, so you HAVE to let him use the car today”
Like I asked before, if I sign a contract with a guy to mow my grass, can the police make him come and cut it if he decides he doesn’t want to do it?
I guess as I think about it, if I simply allowed you to borrow the car, I have given you a license to use it which is revocable at my discretion. Just like if you had me come over to your house for a couple of beers. That is a license to be on your property. If you get tired of my conservative rantings, you can revoke that license and ask me to leave at any time. If I refuse to leave, I am now a trespasser and you or your agent may use reasonable force to eject me.
However if there is consideration and a contract, I have a legal right to be in your house or your car. I am not a trespasser and cannot be forcibly ejected.
So, I guess the answer to the United question would be if the law considers the purchase of ticket and the allowance to board an airplane to be a temporary transfer of a property right, or a simple invitation to travel, revocable at the consent of the airline. The common law might not apply at all as the CoC may provide an absolute answer.
This analogy to private property still doesn’t apply, no matter how many various incarnations of it you are able to imagine.
For the purposes of this comparison a ticketed passenger who complies with all airline regulations and has a confirmed and reserved seat can consider the plane to be public property for the duration of the flight they paid for. The government regulates the reasons a ticketed passenger can be removed beyond breaking airline rules, not the airline or the “owner” of the plane.
The analogies you’re trying to use like removing a passenger from a car or a diner from a restaurant table are totally irrelevant to the discussion of what circumstances an airline can deny transportation.
Generally the police don’t get involved either way in contract disputes, because contract law is not their thing. Whether of not someone has title to a car, or a house, or has contracted to mow a lawn, aren’t criminal offences, so the police stay out.
This case is a good illustration of why they adopt that principle. If it is the case that an airline can always, in every case, kick a passenger off a plane, regardless of the ticket, then the police might say it’s a case of trespassing. But if the passenger has some legal rights to stay on the plane in some cases, and no legal right to stay in other cases, then that looks like a contract dispute that the police should be careful about stepping into.
Why couldn’t you show the police the $50/day rental agreement? Why would that have less force that an outright transfer? Why would only absolute transfers of property be given legal force instead of only partial transfers? Are leases void in your system?
As far as the lawn guy, no you may not force him. I think the default here is redress in the courts. We are talking about “on the spot” remedies. I believe those are only available if someone is trespassing. If you are in my car under a legal claim of right, you are not trespassing.
If I “sell” you my car for one day, it is your car on that day, no? If we sign a one year lease for you to live in my house, and you make the payments, it’s “your” house for that year, right? If you come home and I’m in my boxers watching Amazon Prime, you can throw me out, right?
So, I guess that if this passenger had a legal right to be in his seat on that flight, he is not a trespasser and may not be forcibly ejected.
I agree, but in the rental car scenario mentioned above, what would the police do? The rental company says “I need the car back, and it’s ours” and the customer says “But I have a contract” who do you think the police would side with?
It’s not. The question is whether these statutes protecting airline passengers actually convey a property right. If they do not convey a property right, then the passenger is a trespasser who may be ejected by reasonable force.
The same way that a private business owner can’t refuse service to someone based on race, sex, religion, etc. even though it’s their property, in the tangle of federal airline regulations you can consider ticketed passengers with confirmed reserved seats to be a protected class.
That’s a solid argument, but I don’t think it has been proven. I’m not so sure that the general category of “passenger” is the same as denying service based upon race. And I’m not even sure that denying service based upon race would survive a property rights challenge to an on the spot ejection. Maybe it would.
I simply do not believe that property rights are a red herring here. It is the only basis by which United could forcibly remove a passenger. It is certainly relevant.
I don’t think it has. If there are posts in this thread that prove this, it’s easy for you to link them. If there are laws that prove this, it’s easy for you to link them.
