Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by Rick »

Scooter wrote:Oh please. The kid wasn't locked in a microwave. It was a stupid thing to do, but "too traumatized to fly again"?

Drama queen setting up for a lawsuit.
I don't know man, stupid seems like an understatement.

As far as the lawsuit, I would certainly be contacting Sue...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by rubato »

All small children on airliners should be locked in those dog-crate things and kept in the hold.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8988
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by Sue U »

keld feldspar wrote:
Scooter wrote:Oh please. The kid wasn't locked in a microwave. It was a stupid thing to do, but "too traumatized to fly again"?

Drama queen setting up for a lawsuit.
I don't know man, stupid seems like an understatement.

As far as the lawsuit, I would certainly be contacting Sue...
I wouldn't touch that case with tongs.

Flight attendant's conduct was totally uncool, and employer was within its rights to sack him. But quite frankly the value of damages, if any, is minimal in my view. Plus I think airline negligence is covered by the Warsaw Convention that limits claims pretty severely.
GAH!

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17124
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by Scooter »

But, but, but, she's TOO TRAUMATIZED TO FLY EVER AGAIN!!!!!!

Whatever will she do if she opens a closet door and finds her child hiding inside? Will she be so traumatized that she never wears clothes again?
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater

Big RR
Posts: 14748
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by Big RR »

Come on sue, battery and false imprisonment are intentional torts and could give a lot of punitive damages; you're just not dreaming correctly.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8988
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by Sue U »

Big RR wrote:Come on sue, battery and false imprisonment are intentional torts and could give a lot of punitive damages; you're just not dreaming correctly.
Ha. I dreamed big once (decided to cut out the middleman and sue the government, 'cause that's who prints the money); it's now four years later and we haven't even gotten past the initial jurisdictional issues, let alone reached the substance of the claims. But I'm still dreaming!
GAH!

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by Rick »

OK I retract.

I won't call Sue.

Oh! I'm so traumatized I won't be able to talk about a lawyer again... :wink:
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6721
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by Long Run »

The question/problem with a lawsuit here is whether the airline (the deep pocket) is liable for this action by its employee. Arguably, the employee's behavior is so far outside the normal bounds of this job that the airline would not be liable, especially since it fired the employee for the behavior. The employee likely doesn't have any money so a lawsuit would be pointless if the airline could not be sued.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8988
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Put Baby In The Overhead Bin - Great Idea!

Post by Sue U »

Long Run wrote:The question/problem with a lawsuit here is whether the airline (the deep pocket) is liable for this action by its employee. Arguably, the employee's behavior is so far outside the normal bounds of this job that the airline would not be liable, especially since it fired the employee for the behavior. The employee likely doesn't have any money so a lawsuit would be pointless if the airline could not be sued.
Oh, I think the airline's liability for its employee is pretty much a no-brainer: He was on board the airplane, engaged in customer service and management of the cabin. He was negligent and/or reckless in the performance of those duties, to be sure, but they were still the (employer's) duties being performed. Plus, under the Montreal Convention (which has evdiently now superseded the Warsaw Convention that I had mentioned above), strict liability applies to the airline for any proven damages under the Convention limit:
Under the Montreal Convention, air carriers are strictly liable for proven damages up to 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) (Updated from 100,000 on December 31 2009), a mix of currency values established by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), approximately $138,000 per passenger at the time of its ratification by the United States in 2003 (as of June 2009, around $154,800). Where damages of more than 113,100 SDR are sought, the airline may avoid liability by proving that the accident which caused the injury or death was not due to their negligence or was attributable to the negligence of a third party. This defence is not available where damages of less than 113,100 SDR are sought. The Convention also amended the jurisdictional provisions of Warsaw and now allows the victim or their families to sue foreign carriers where they maintain their principal residence, and requires all air carriers to carry liability insurance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_C ... on#Damages

Again, I think the problem with the case is damages. In my view, if you could get a few free round-trip tickets to a destination of your choice, you'd be getting all (probably more than) this case is worth.
GAH!

Post Reply