Originally Posted by
whitearrow
But I thought we were talking about a situation here where someone volunteered (was not asked, much less ordered) to drink the liquid?
Besides, given the difficulty of getting the federal government into court in the first place, I think the damages would have to be extraordinary (e.g., permanent physical harm... not a tummy ache) before most lawyers would even consider taking this on.
I was illustrating how the line between "voluntary" and "involuntary" could easily be blurred in court. Imagine a 19 year-old on spring break. He comes through the checkpoint with a bottle Aquafina partially filled with vodka. (I know this could
never happen
) His intention is to mix it with orange juice onboard and share it with his friends. The bottle is discovered and he is told he can either consume it right there, throw it out, or check it. Let's assume he does as some of us would sophomore year in college and drinks it. Whatever happens past that point in time could be argued as a result of TSA's actions. Apply the "but for" test to the situation and it would seem legitimate. The courts have seemed to determine that individuals are not responsible for their own actions, defendants with large purses are.