Questions: An article in the New York Times (May 15, 2007) reported several incidents of passengers being stranded on the tarmac for anywhere from a couple of hours to 10 hours with limited food and drinks and deteriorating lavatory conditions. Do you think these passengers could bring a suit against the airline for false imprisonment?

The answer is Yes: the passengers could potentially bring a suit against the airline for false imprisonment.

Explanation: False imprisonment is a legal term that refers to the unlawful restraint of a person against their will. To establish a claim for false imprisonment, the plaintiff must typically prove the following elements:

1. The defendant acted with the intent to confine the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff was conscious of the confinement.
3. The plaintiff did not consent to the confinement.
4. The confinement was not otherwise privileged or justified.

In the context of passengers being stranded on the tarmac for extended periods, the following points could be considered:

• Intent to Confine: The airline, by not allowing passengers to disembark, may be seen as intentionally confining them to the aircraft.
• Consciousness of Confinement: The passengers were aware that they were not free to leave the aircraft.
• Lack of Consent: Passengers did not consent to being held on the tarmac for such extended periods, especially under deteriorating conditions.
• Privilege or Justification: The airline might argue that the confinement was justified due to safety or regulatory reasons. However, if the confinement was excessively long and conditions were poor, this justification might not hold up in court.

Relevant examples include past legal cases where passengers have successfully sued airlines for similar situations. For instance, in 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation introduced the "Tarmac Delay Rule," which limits the time airlines can keep passengers on the tarmac to three hours for domestic flights and four hours for international flights, with certain exceptions.

Therefore, given the circumstances described, passengers could potentially have a valid claim for false imprisonment against the airline.