Assault?
 

A co-worker and friend received a call that her mother had been hospitalized in critical condition in another state and said co-worker flew to her mother's bedside. Having bought a ticket on very short notice, she was SSSS'd.

Now, this lady has severe arthritis and limited range of motion. When she was being searched, the screener told her she had to lift her arms higher. My friend told the screener she was unable to do that. At that point the screener grabbed her arm and lifted it, causing pain. Fortunately, I had advised her of what she was going to have to endure at security (SSSS - she's not been on a plane in many a year) and that if anything even felt (at the time, I did not mean that literally) wrong with the procedure she should ask for a supervisor. She did exactly that when the screener lifted her arm. The supervisor did intercede and, wonder of wonders, reprimanded the screener in front of my friend.

She filed a complaint and kept a copy of it, but she wondered to me if she might possibly have an assault case against the screener, whose name and number she obtained (this lady is sharp). I think she might. What say you?

It sounds closer to battery to me. I doubt there is a case here, but you don't have to convince me--just a jury, which is easier. Has she been examined by a physician who could testify that the person incurred some sort of damage?

Battery, yes, you're probably correct. I now understand the difference. And no, I don't think there's any quantifiable damage, but I'll ask her. However, it doesn't seem to me that any screener should be allowed to inflict pain upon a passenger.

Sorry, I hit submit when the heaving started.

Seems to me that if a passenger tells a screener "I can't do that", then that should be the end of it. A screener must take the passenger's word that he/she can not physically do what is asked.

Tmi !!!!
 

Sorry to de-rail the thread but this takes the cake for the most bizarre reason I've yet seen for a thread edit. :D

Actually, this probably falls under the category of Assault and Battery. Now the chances of success in court could be quite low.

Assault is basically, the actions leading upto a battery. However, the victim must fear that they are about to be unlawfully touched, and that the person intends to touch them. Battery is the intentional unlawful touching of a person. Legally speaking no actual harm has to be done, the harm is infered. However, from the civil/tort side there generally needs to be recordable harm for a case to be brought.

In this case, there would be two issues. The first is whether the TSA screener can be held accountable in tort for the action. The key is whether governmental immunity applies to the screener. I would think so, but cannot be sure. The second is can the screener be held criminally liable for the actions. Again I think this is a tough decision. Governmental immunity will not protect the screener, but the procedures of TSA may negate the intent element. What I am thinking is the screener may have not intended to do any harm. There is the possibility that the screener thought the person was being uncooperative, or there may be some SSI instructions what to do when the person cannot fully "spread-em". Further, there is the issue of whether the person consented to the touching.

In the end I think the chances of prevailing would be low, unless it is quite clear on the outside that this person may have limited mobility/flexiablity. The fact that the Supervisor repremanded the screener, indicates that some procedure was most likely violated, but I doubt that it rises to the level that a prosecutor would take up the case.

I know it stinks that this happened, I hope she is ok.

The criminal law of many states has abolished the distinction between assault and battery, following the Uniform Penal Code (I think that is the model statute). If memory serves correctly, sovereign immunity can be waived/does not apply if jury finds gross negligence and/or deviation from SOP.

True, but there are a number of states that still have the distinction. I cannot remember, but I think the UPC classifies them together as Assault (or is it Assault and Battery). I guess it is time to dust off the old crim law books.

As for soverign immunity, I beleive it comes down to what the state statute says regarding the waiver, and if the Feds actually want to give it up. On the criminal side of things I think the Feds have waived the criminal immunity for acts committed by individuals that commit felony level crimes. However, I believe, and I may be wrong, that before the trial can occur, the waiver must occur. Hence, this would be a royal PITA for the prosecutor, especially when TSA will hide behind SSI so as not to disclose the SOP. It will be darn near impossible to determine if SOP was violated, and what portion of it was violated, which would be key to determine if a waiver of immunity has occured.

Well I am a prosecutor and would never prosecute something like this as a criminal case. The intent element is the key. The law in my state defines assault (the distinction between assault and battery has been removed) as "Knowingly and intentionally causing bodily injury (pain can be bodily injury) to another" or "Knowingly and intentionally placing another in reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury". The law in most states is pretty similar. The TSA screener did not intend or set out to cause pain or bodily injury, insensitive though the person was, he or she was just doing their job. And to get a civil judgment against the Federal Govt on something like this - I doubt it!

So, how about a civil suit for negligence?

no damage...no litigation
 

If there was no damage that required medical attention how do you think the person can sue??? I can see why Republicans think this country is litigation happy.

Is this a State issue? The TSA are federal employees: I don't think there is a jurisdictional issue here.

Your comment injured me. :( Would you mind sending me your contact information so I can sue you. ;) Thanks in advance!

How do we know there is no damage?

I suggest a large battery of expensive tests. @:-)

Well there is damage on the tort side of things. However, the damages are most likely to be nominal. Thus if the person were to sue and prevail, the damage award would most likely be $1. Furthermore, the TSA is more likely to claim governmental immunity in a civil case than a criminal case, because the lawyer (if you can find one to take this case) is going to go after TSA through agency as they have deeper pockets than the screener.

I didn't read any post after yours, because you hit the nail on the head. Intent. There was no intent on causing the subject bodily injury. Stupidity is a different subject.

I do see a civil lawsuit in the future if the events portrayed were as they happened on that day.