## Facts

- Adrienne Rubin bought a coach ticket from Los Angeles to Hawaii and attempted to upgrade to first class using her husband’s frequent-flyer miles.
- At the airport, United’s system reflected only a coach reservation and indicated the miles had been re-credited to her husband’s account.
- A gate agent told Rubin she lacked the additional miles needed for the upgrade and directed her to customer service; by the time the matter was addressed, she did not have the required miles and boarding was underway.
- Rubin returned to the gate near departure; first-class seats had been assigned to other passengers.
- During boarding, Rubin entered the jetway and insisted on first-class seating without a first-class boarding pass and repeatedly refused crew and employee instructions regarding seating and baggage.
- Rubin attempted to enter the first-class cabin, left a bag obstructing a doorway and refused to move it, sat in an emergency-exit row seat without authorization, and then occupied another passenger’s seat.
- The flight was delayed and cabin conditions became tense; the crew decided Rubin should be removed due to safety concerns arising from her noncompliance and disruption.
- Rubin refused to deplane; police officers boarded and physically removed her while some passengers reacted aggressively.
- Rubin was detained for several hours and later traveled to Hawaii on another flight.
- Rubin sued United for state-law torts including false arrest/false imprisonment, assault, battery, unlawful search and seizure, and emotional distress; the trial court granted United summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether state-law tort claims arising from an airline’s removal of a passenger are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act’s preemption of state laws “relating to” airline “services.”
2. Whether federal law authorizing a carrier to refuse transport to a passenger believed to be inimical to safety bars tort liability when the carrier’s safety-based decision is reasonable.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for United.
- The court did not resolve the case solely on Airline Deregulation Act preemption; it assumed arguendo that the tort claims could proceed and affirmed on federal safety-discretion grounds.
- Under the federal refusal-to-transport statute, an airline incurs no tort liability for removing a passenger if, at the time, airline personnel had a reasonable basis to believe the passenger presented, or might present, a safety risk.
- Based on undisputed evidence of repeated noncompliance, disruption, and escalating passenger unrest, United’s decision to remove Rubin was reasonable as a matter of law, defeating her tort claims.

## Legal Principles

- Federal law (49 U.S.C. § 44902(b)) permits an air carrier to refuse transport to a passenger the carrier believes is, or might become, inimical to safety.
- The carrier’s statutory discretion is reviewed under a reasonableness standard: the question is whether airline personnel had a reasonable basis, at the time of the decision, for believing the passenger posed or might pose a safety risk.
- The statute does not require proof of actual danger; it permits preventive action based on observable conduct and conditions confronting the crew.
- When an airline’s refusal or ejection is a reasonable exercise of this federal safety authority, it operates as a complete defense to state-law tort claims premised on the removal.

## Conclusion

The court held that United was not liable for state-law torts stemming from Rubin’s removal because, given her repeated refusal to follow crew instructions and the resulting disruption, United reasonably concluded she might be inimical to safety and acted within its federally authorized discretion to refuse transport.


Rubin v. United Air Lines, Inc., 96 Cal. App. 4th 364, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)