lewisc

The employee was stealing while on company time, while performing his duties. Of course the corporation should be liable. Delta should have paid for the camera, I suspect the OP replaced the camera during the 8 month period and/or given him a travel voucher.

It's a shame that litigation may be the only way to force the airline to adequately supervise their employees.

DiverDave

There is that pesky old contract of carriage: http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.ne...rriage_dom.pdf

Page 32 deals with Fragile, Perishable, or Precious items.

David

lewisc

The poster I was responding to was making a generic conservative arguement that a corporation isn't responsible for the actions of their employees.

The CoC might limit the airlines legal obligation but it doesn't change the fact that the airline is responsible.

I did a search of the linked CoC in your post. I can't find the language, that we assume is there, that limits Delta's liability. The issue is proving the camera was ever in the checked luggage. Delta can't use that excuse.

haveric

Nothing like blaming the victim...

DiverDave

The airline is "responsible" in that context, but so is the passenger. The passenger put an undeclared valuable item in his checked baggage, and is at fault for doing that.

The passenger also lost any moral high ground with the publicity threat, IMO.

Page 40, Section 5b. I guess a court could decide if "loss" includes theft by an employee or contractor.

David

Lehava

They wouldn't be a victim if they hadn't put the camera in there. Obviously the DL employee was wrong (and was prosecuted appropriately) but the traveller was also wrong and has to hold some responsibility. Playing the "blame the victim" card does not absolve people for taking responsibility for their own actions!!!

sxf24

Nothing like fishing for dollars with empty threats...

GrizShel

Yes, the airline should not have to be responsible for anything inside checked luggage or damage to the lugggage itself; after all, he could have shipped it overnight to his destination if he didn't want to carry it on or it was too heavy or bulky. And putting items worth more than $50 in checked baggage provides too much temptation to certain of their employees. And this guy has cost them alot of money in their time spent dealing with this, including terminating the employee - so perhaps he should pay them.

BTW, the man says about his request:

GMill

IANAL, but if a Delta employee damaged the OP in the course and scope of his duties as a baggage handler, then Delta has an obligation to make the OP whole. This includes not only return of the camera, but compensation for the OP's time to get the camera returned, compensation for the anxiety he now suffers worrying about baggage theft and of course compensation to his wife for loss of consortium while the OP was preoccupied with the recovery of his camera.

lewisc

I wouldn't have checked the camera but I'm not sure if a $250 camera qualifies as a "precious item". The fact that an employee has time to open a bag and steal items without being observed by a camera or supervisor isn't right. This isn't a TSA agent that has a right to open the bag. Many department stores check every bag an employee takes out of a store. Employees in many department stores have to use a clear bag for personal items. Delta was not only wrong in not supervising the employee but in having a system that allowed the employee to get the stolen stuff out of the airport.


The OP didn't have use of a camera for about 8 months. The OP filed an immediate claim. The OP is responsible for a dishonest employee being fired. Giving the OP some kind of travel voucher, although not legally required, sounds very reasonable to many of us.

Lehava

I disagree, since Delta had already told the traveller (don't believe it was the OP, think they were just sharing the story) not to put that stuff in the bag and that they weren't responsible for it, the traveller decided to take the risk themselves.

stevenshev

Nope, that's wrong. Under Tort Law, vicarious liability applies to the employer (here, Delta) regardless of their policy against the action taken by the employer, so long as the employee was acting within the general scope of his job duties, which he was. Delta is liable, and I believe an action by the victim here would be easily successful. Delta should just refund the damn tickets and save themselves the bad press.

GUWonder

This is a bad example.

1. There has been no litigation on this matter against Delta as of yet.
2. There has been no legal judgment against Delta on this matter as of yet.
3. Employers are responsible for the on-the-clock behavior of their employees in a variety of circumstances.
4. Ignorance and lack of timely and complete action is no excuse.

RSSrsvp

Well I have been accused in the past of associating with some shady people on this board.

winodj

Would seem to me that this empty threat came after several difficult correspondences from the airline.

If I was this guy and eight months of being nice was getting me not even an apology from the airline, I might try a threat to take this to a higher level myself.

It's not even about the camera anymore - I think a lot of people misunderstand that. It's about the principle now. It's about the corporation refusing to take responsibility for what their employee did in their name while in the process of doing the job that they've done.

If putting a $250 camera in checked luggage is an unacceptable risk for most travelers, why would anyone consider sending anything of any value through Delta as cargo? Wouldn't that be unacceptable risk as well?

Delta may not necessarily be "responsible" under their Terms and Conditions - but they ought to do the right thing. Fire the employee, reward the person who was victimized by their bad seed by making amends for long term loss of property.