# Passenger sues Delta and pet owner after emotional support dog attacks him



## pennyk (May 30, 2019)

> A passenger traveling on a 2017 Delta flight is suing the airline and a pet owner, claiming that an emotional support dog bit him in an attack that left permanent damage to his face.
> 
> Marlin Jackson of Alabama filed the lawsuit over the June 2017 incident on Friday. He’s accusing the airline and the dog owner, a U.S. Marine, of negligence and demanding an unspecified amount of damages.



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pass...21de4b00cfa1965cbc0?ncid=engmodushpmg00000006


----------



## RichieRich (May 30, 2019)

Isn't it time to simply stop ALL ANIMALs on-board? (planes, trains, buses) The A/T is full of these "support" animals. And remember it is an overnite non-stop (Ok- 10 minutes at 1:00am in Florence).


----------



## Acela150 (May 30, 2019)

RichieRich said:


> Isn't it time to simply stop ALL ANIMALs on-board? (planes, trains, buses) The A/T is full of these "support" animals. And remember it is an overnite non-stop (Ok- 10 minutes at 1:00am in Florence).



I doubt that they are "Emotional Support Animals". Simply cause Amtrak policy doesn't allow them. Only Service Animals. And if you have an issue with Service Animals talk to the Feds about the ADA law.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 30, 2019)

Acela150 said:


> I doubt that they are "Emotional Support Animals". Simply cause Amtrak policy doesn't allow them. Only Service Animals. And if you have an issue with Service Animals talk to the Feds about the ADA law.



Or talk to the people he wants to discriminate against and find out why service dogs should be allowed on public transportation.
Don’t take it out on those who benefit from service animals because of the jerks who feel entitled to abuse the system.


----------



## Acela150 (May 30, 2019)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Or talk to the people he wants to discriminate against and find out why service dogs should be allowed on public transportation.
> Don’t take it out on those who benefit from service animals because of the jerks who feel entitled to abuse the system.



Sadly in these current times many people feel they're entitled to something for the stupidest reasons. It's a shame. Cause you're right. The people that think they're entitled will ruin something for people who actually have a need.


----------



## RichieRich (May 30, 2019)

Acela150 said:


> I doubt that they are "Emotional Support Animals". Simply cause Amtrak policy doesn't allow them. Only Service Animals. And if you have an issue with Service Animals talk to the Feds about the ADA law.


LOL LOL "Doesn't allow them"??? I've had my fill of "whatever" animals on Amtrak. I've seen enough that are sneaked on into the bedrooms. And a "service animal" Dr. note is about as hard as getting a "marijuana" as medication note! LOL LOL


----------



## railiner (May 30, 2019)

I see the main problem being there is no easy way for a carrier to identify what are true trained service animal's, and what are just pets.
The solution would be some kind of standardized 'license' for properly trained service animal's, to leave no doubt...


----------



## MARC Rider (May 30, 2019)

Acela150 said:


> I doubt that they are "Emotional Support Animals". Simply cause Amtrak policy doesn't allow them. Only Service Animals. And if you have an issue with Service Animals talk to the Feds about the ADA law.


Actually, you need to talk to yor Congressperson and Senators. "The Feds" can't do much more than administer the Acts of Congress, which is what the ADA is.


----------



## RichieRich (May 30, 2019)

railiner said:


> The solution would be ...


The solution would be: no discrimination - NO ANIMALS period period period!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 30, 2019)

railiner said:


> I see the main problem being there is no easy way for a carrier to identify what are true trained service animal's, and what are just pets.
> The solution would be some kind of standardized 'license' for properly trained service animal's, to leave no doubt...



Which puts the burden on the people who benefit from having a service dog.

We already know how much people love having to deal with security lines at airports, stadiums, buildings, etc because of the “bad” guys. People who claim their precious pup is a service dog are also the “bad” guys.


----------



## Acela150 (May 30, 2019)

RichieRich said:


> The solution would be: no discrimination - NO ANIMALS period period period!



Congratulations! You just pissed off everyone who needs a service animal as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and you also pissed off someone who works with people who have special needs. Grow up.


----------



## Acela150 (May 30, 2019)

railiner said:


> I see the main problem being there is no easy way for a carrier to identify what are true trained service animal's, and what are just pets.
> The solution would be some kind of standardized 'license' for properly trained service animal's, to leave no doubt...



I believe true service animals have some type of proof that they are a service animal. The only thing that a conductor can say to someone with a service animal is something along the lines of "what major life activity does you animal help you do". That's the only as defined by law one can ask.


----------



## SarahZ (May 30, 2019)

RichieRich said:


> I've seen enough that are sneaked on into the bedrooms.



Report them to a conductor next time.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 30, 2019)

Acela150 said:


> *I believe true service animals have some type of proof*that they are a service animal. The only thing that a conductor can say to someone with a service animal is something along the lines of "what major life activity does you animal help you do". That's the only as defined by law one can ask.


I don't think so.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 30, 2019)

Acela150 said:


> I believe true service animals have some type of proof that they are a service animal.



No employee can ask for any proof, by design. Nor is there any proof to provide, by design. If you ask for proof anyway there will be hell to pay, by design. The people behind the ADA decided long ago that allowing the wrong kind of animal is preferable to allowing staff to ask for proof of anything. This whole debate is ridiculous but it was also entirely predictable. The people behind ADA rules and guidelines created this problem by tying the hands of those tasked with enforcing it. As currently implemented the animal has to be witnessed doing something obviously disruptive or threatening to legally safeguard an employee who endeavors to remove them. Unfortunately this means that there is a risk it will be too late to prevent harm to others. The people who manage and maintain the ADA will need to be persuaded to fix this problem with new guidelines that acknowledge and address the potential for rampant misuse. Or they can just sit back and do nothing until the tide eventually turns against them. I never thought I'd harbor anti-ADA sentiment but here we are.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 31, 2019)

Since there is no official proof (paper, card, etc), an employee should be able remove anyone who shows “proof” when asked about their “service” animal because that “proof” is fake.


----------



## Michigan Mom (May 31, 2019)

My position is that no animals, outside of legitimate, actual service animals, belong in trains, planes, grocery stores, or restaurants.


----------



## Ryan (May 31, 2019)

RichieRich said:


> Isn't it time to simply stop ALL ANIMALs on-board? (planes, trains, buses)



No. As the dogpile has already indicated, many count on them to be able to function in society. Perhaps if you were similarly disadvantaged, your tune would change. 



Michigan Mom said:


> My position is that no animals, outside of legitimate, actual service animals, belong in trains, planes, grocery stores, or restaurants.


I’m perfectly willing to leave it up to business owners. Feel free to not patronize establishments that welcome pets, but to need to impose your will on others that feel differently.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 31, 2019)

I no longer concern myself with worrying about the reasons someone may want to bring a particular animal or pet. As a practical matter it's difficult if not impossible for a clerk or cashier to reliably establish a genuine motive in a timely fashion. That's why I've changed my view to focusing on whether the animal is able to coexist quietly and peacefully without causing any problems. If someone wants a pet just because it feels good then so long as the pet is trained and tempered to avoid any trouble I don't really have a problem with it. I find this to be good common ground approach but making such a determination would most likely require some sort of certification and verification process to be practical, and the ADA as currently implemented actively prevents this.


----------



## Michigan Mom (May 31, 2019)

So what is the thought, about the pet who attacks a legitimate service animal, or a person? Ryan, if your dog allows you to function in society but chews off half of my face, I'm just not going to agree with the position you have articulated. I like Devil's common ground approach except for many people there is a question of allergic reaction, and basic sanitary safeguards. Also as DA has stated the current ADA would need some clarification and amendment to allow for verification of service animal status etc.
It may interest people to know that in developing countries there are numerous adverse health conditions that arise from people living in close proximity to animals. This is not to say that your pet will make you or anyone sick. It does argue for health departments establishing rules and limiting animals from common areas, food sources, etc. There has to be a way to manage risks. Train travel, already inherently longer than plane travel, and less flexible than car travel, is the least ideal situation for animals.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 31, 2019)

Ryan said:


> I’m perfectly willing to leave it up to business owners. Feel free to not patronize establishments that welcome pets, but to need to impose your will on others that feel differently.



That is the best approach. However, in Amtrak's case, it was forced upon them. When they were given leeway, service animals were allowed but not comfort animals or pets. At this points, pets were forced upon them. Although there are restrictions, they are routinely circumvented. 

How long until someone sues for comfort animals on trains?


----------



## saxman (Jun 1, 2019)

I think some of us are mixing up service animals vs. emotional support animals vs. a pet. Service animals are highly trained, ADA compliant, to assist those with a disability. They are always well behaved and they allowed to be anywhere a person is allowed. 

The main abuse comes from emotional support animals. These were meant to provide people to help them cope with issues, such as PTSD, or other mental states. Yet now it's being abused because the laws are very relaxed and anyone with a computer can go online and print an emotional support certificate. It crossed the line when someone brought an emotional support turkey on a Delta flight a few years. The turkey had it's own seat!! I've seen numerous people walking around the airports with their tiny dog and they bought a "service animal" vest and put it on their tiny dog Fee-Fee, while she goes to the bathroom on the floor. A real service animal won't do that. It's these people that are undermining it for people that actually need service and emotional support animals.

Then there's those with pets that need to travel with them and pay the fee that's required. They must stay in their carrier at all times and ride under the seat or be checked as an animal in the cargo hold.


----------



## Barb Stout (Jun 1, 2019)

saxman said:


> I think some of us are mixing up service animals vs. emotional support animals vs. a pet. Service animals are highly trained, ADA compliant, to assist those with a disability. They are always well behaved and they allowed to be anywhere a person is allowed.
> 
> The main abuse comes from emotional support animals. These were meant to provide people to help them cope with issues, such as PTSD, or other mental states. Yet now it's being abused because the laws are very relaxed and anyone with a computer can go online and print an emotional support certificate. It crossed the line when someone brought an emotional support turkey on a Delta flight a few years. The turkey had it's own seat!! I've seen numerous people walking around the airports with their tiny dog and they bought a "service animal" vest and put it on their tiny dog Fee-Fee, while she goes to the bathroom on the floor. A real service animal won't do that. It's these people that are undermining it for people that actually need service and emotional support animals.
> 
> Then there's those with pets that need to travel with them and pay the fee that's required. They must stay in their carrier at all times and ride under the seat or be checked as an animal in the cargo hold.


There isn't any special licensing or anything required for a service animal either. I worked with a lady who had a "service" dog who supposedly helped her with her balance. I can tell you from being around her a lot, the need was almost totally fake. The dog was trained by her to do just the basic stuff like "sit' and "stay" which the dog didn't necessarily follow anyways. The dog pretty much was a pet and the "balance" help was totally fraudulent. Yet she was able to take the dog anywhere she went, the swimming pool, restaurants, fancy hotels, etc. The dog was a nice dog though and no aggressive bone in her body. The lady, on the other hand, was very aggressive with many mean bones in her body.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 1, 2019)

Michigan Mom said:


> Ryan, if your dog allows you to function in society but chews off half of my face, I'm just not going to agree with the position you have articulated.



Can you provide an actual example of a service animal doing this?


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jun 2, 2019)

Ryan said:


> Can you provide an actual example of a service animal doing this?



You serious, Clark?


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jun 2, 2019)

To be clear, Ryan, there are no examples of a service animal doing that.
There are numerous examples, starting with the subject of the OP, of other animals doing that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 2, 2019)

saxman said:


> I think some of us are mixing up service animals vs. emotional support animals vs. a pet.


I've stopped making these distinctions because the manner of abuse and the method for practical resolution is similar if not identical.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 2, 2019)

Michigan Mom said:


> You serious, Clark?



Were you serious when you used it as the basis for disagreeing with me?



Michigan Mom said:


> To be clear, Ryan, there are no examples of a service animal doing that.



Looks like you weren’t. It’s just so hard to agree with someone, I guess.


----------



## saxman (Jun 2, 2019)

Barb Stout said:


> There isn't any special licensing or anything required for a service animal either. I worked with a lady who had a "service" dog who supposedly helped her with her balance. I can tell you from being around her a lot, the need was almost totally fake. The dog was trained by her to do just the basic stuff like "sit' and "stay" which the dog didn't necessarily follow anyways. The dog pretty much was a pet and the "balance" help was totally fraudulent. Yet she was able to take the dog anywhere she went, the swimming pool, restaurants, fancy hotels, etc. The dog was a nice dog though and no aggressive bone in her body. The lady, on the other hand, was very aggressive with many mean bones in her body.



While I wasn't there, then I'm guessing that wasn't a true service dog. Owners wouldn't do the training. Service animals receive months if not years of training from professionals. Most dogs don't make it through all the training.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 2, 2019)

Michigan Mom said:


> My position is that no animals, outside of legitimate, actual service animals, belong in trains, planes, grocery stores, or restaurants.



You know, the British seem to manage allowing dogs on trains, subways ("the underground"), restaurants, etc. I wonder how they do it?


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jun 2, 2019)

MARC Rider said:


> You know, the British seem to manage allowing dogs on trains, subways ("the underground"), restaurants, etc. I wonder how they do it?



I don't know. Shorter trips? More clear-cut policies? More responsible owners?


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jun 2, 2019)

Ryan said:


> Were you serious when you used it as the basis for disagreeing with me?
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you weren’t. It’s just so hard to agree with someone, I guess.



It's not all that hard. I'm not going to agree or disagree with you, for one thing I'm never quite sure what point you're making. I'm just noting that the subject of the story was not a service animal, it was an ESA that attacked someone and yes, bit them in the face causing disfigurement.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jun 2, 2019)

To add a recent experience to this discussion, when our LSL trip was near arrival into Chicago, and the SCA asked people to give him their used linens as he came through the car, when I removed the sheets from the mattress there was a series of smallish, circular urine stains on the mattress. These were most likely caused by someone's pet. When the SCA got to our room I showed him the mattress and he said, "That's disgusting." Yes. Yes, it was. So. While this experience doesn't rise to the level of being attacked, obviously, it does reinforce my conviction that animals do not belong on trains unless they are trained service animals. 
I'm not going to complain to Amtrak about it and when they sent me a survey about our LSL trip I didn't mention it. The SCA was going to write it up and I trust he took care of that. Also I didn't want to cause an issue for any employees and I'm not looking for compensation. In case anyone wonders.


----------



## SarahZ (Jun 2, 2019)

Yes, because small yellow stains on a mattress couldn't possibly have been made by children having an accident, spilled juice, or sweat.

Also, only service animals are allowed in sleeper cars, so your point about only allowing service animals is moot.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Jun 3, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> No employee can ask for any proof, by design. Nor is there any proof to provide, by design. If you ask for proof anyway there will be hell to pay, by design. The people behind the ADA decided long ago that allowing the wrong kind of animal is preferable to allowing staff to ask for proof of anything. This whole debate is ridiculous but it was also entirely predictable. The people behind ADA rules and guidelines created this problem by tying the hands of those tasked with enforcing it. As currently implemented the animal has to be witnessed doing something obviously disruptive or threatening to legally safeguard an employee who endeavors to remove them. Unfortunately this means that there is a risk it will be too late to prevent harm to others. The people who manage and maintain the ADA will need to be persuaded to fix this problem with new guidelines that acknowledge and address the potential for rampant misuse. Or they can just sit back and do nothing until the tide eventually turns against them. I never thought I'd harbor anti-ADA sentiment but here we are.


Agreed

I'm pro-ADA generally, but there are some provisions in the law (and the manner in which they are enforced or implemented) which bug me.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 3, 2019)

Michigan Mom said:


> It's not all that hard.





Michigan Mom said:


> I'm never quite sure what point you're making.



Sounds like it is pretty hard for you, at least. If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, why take the time to write a reply where you say you disagree if you don’t even understand what you’re agreeing with? It should be pretty obvious that I’m talking about actual service animals. 



Michigan Mom said:


> I'm just not going to agree with the position you have articulated.





Michigan Mom said:


> I'm not going to agree or disagree with you,



Well, which is it? If you’re going to not disagree with me, not disagreeing with me would be a good place to start.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 3, 2019)

I agree with Sarah. Sweaty juice swilling children need to be banned from sleepers post haste. On a more serious note though, can we please stop with the endless back and forth bickering. Thank you.


----------



## pennyk (Jun 4, 2019)

We are temporarily (or permanently) locking this thread. The discussion on the topic appears to have run its course. A few posts that involving name calling and/or a back and forth among members have been removed.
In the future, please attempt to keep the discussion on topic and avoid engaging other members in direct discussion within the thread (even if you do not agree with their positions).
Thank you.


----------

