International Law

Great Case for Law School

By Stan

As soon as I read this article in Wired, I immediately thought it would make an excellent case study for a law school class. Haven’t seen anything this good in a while. (Sorry, this has nothing at all to do with China.)

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a regulatory ruling requiring the country’s airlines to provide an extra seat — at no charge — to obese passengers and those with certain disabilities. Failing to do so, the court said, is discriminatory.

The landmark ruling requires the nation’s carriers to adopt the Canadian Transportation Agency’s "one person, one fare" guideline that grants an additional seat to the obese and to those with disabilities requiring a personal attendant or wheelchair. Although the ruling applies only to domestic flights, it could pave the way toward similar policies in other countries that have grappled with the issue.

If you’re into law and public policy, read the entire article. Solid arguments on both sides of the issue here. I’m still not sure where I stand on this. I do think that it will be difficult for airlines to implement this decision, though. I wonder what will happen when folks try to take advantage of the ruling to get special treatment?

If this ever happened in China, you would have people claiming that they are disabled by being allergic to airplane seat belts and should therefore not have to wear them. (Research has clearly shown a genetic predisposition here for airplane seat belt allergies, so I’m sure a court would go along with it.) This is what we call in the legal biz a "slippery slope".

Full post as published by China Hearsay on December 03, 2008 (boomark / email).