Originally Posted by You want to go where?
Given the "facts" that have been stated - I think the question may not be negligent but intentional infliction of emotional distress. I have know idea of whether Florida recognizes this, but I think that there is a reasonable argument that threatening people with loaded guns and interrogating them is intended to produce emotional distress.
Florida does recognize intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the threshold for proving that tort is arguably the highest of any recognized by our legal system (and obviously more exacting than that required for negligent infliction):
It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by "malice," or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, "Outrageous!"
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278-79 (Fla. 1985) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965)).
You really think a plaintiff seeking recovery under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress against state or federal law enforcement because he or she was forced to exit the 757 as a precuation via air stairs with his or her hands up and without his or her carryon luggage following an alleged bomb threat and fatal shooting by law enforcement could meet that threshold? I certainly do not. The Restatement and Florida law establish that "liability clearly does not extend to mere . . . indignities, threats, annoyances, [or] petty oppressions."
Scheller v. American Med. Int'l, Inc., 502 So. 2d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
In case we are unclear, here is a real world example of despicable conduct that the Florida courts have determined did not rise to the level of inentional infliction:
Williams is a former employee of appellee Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. where he worked under the supervision of appellee Arthur Ambruster, Worldwide's general manager. In his Amended Complaint, Williams alleged that Worldwide and Ambruster intentionally discriminated against him due to his African-American race. Ambruster, as well as other Worldwide supervisory employees, called him a "nigg*r" and "monkey" in front of him, other employees, over the "walkie talkie," and over the work radio. Ambruster repeatedly told him that he did not want Ambruster's "black ..." there. Ambruster also instructed Eileen Motte, another supervisor, to "create a record" of false disciplinary related incidents for Williams so as to justify Williams' subsequent termination. Motte did not allow Williams to work with other African-American employees because "nigg*rs will steal if they are left to work together." Worldwide also falsely accused Williams of stealing. Ambruster constantly and persistently threatened Williams with job termination for no apparent reason. Ambruster also directed Williams to load and/or unload aircraft in inclement and dangerous weather conditions, to move dangerous heavy equipment and cargo, and to work extra flights thereby "eliminating" Williams' break times.
Williams v. Worldwide Flight Servs., 877 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3rd. DCA 2004) (holding that "th[ose] facts do not rise to the level of outrageous conduct required under Florida law to maintain an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress") (slur modified to conform with FlyerTalk terms of service).
Surely what happened to the innocent bystander passengers aboard AA #924 was a drop in the bucket compared to what happened to Mr. Williams, no?