The ugly consequences
Mar 21, 2007 | 12:51 am
#31
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: AA
Posts: 85
"It is a cautionary tale," she (the doctor) said. Huh? I never heard such a warning, yet somehow determined this wouldn't be a good idea.
Mar 21, 2007 | 2:19 am
#32
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: Flying Blue, easyJet Plus (!)
Posts: 1,762
She could have labelled more clearly. She could have checked a bag. She could have purchased the items airside, if available.
While the liquids carnival is nonsense, blaming it entirely for this is pushing it.
Mar 21, 2007 | 3:25 am
#33
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Programs: M+M, VN
Posts: 575
Unfortunately, now we have one - a citizen who suffered both a disabling injury as well as financial loss from her inability to work, not because of the TSA rules inasmuch as her loss was caused by TSA employees not following the established rules which do not bar unmarked bottles.
There's no way that every time people do stupid things to comply with the peculiar and often inexplicable rules the TSA is responsible.
Mar 21, 2007 | 3:46 am
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Without detracting from the scary horror of her injuries, and my wishes for a speedy and full recovery, this sounds like the perfect legal case to get the issue of TSA accountability solved once and for all.
To date, there has been little or no evidence of an event where TSA agents failing to follow procedures resulted in real injuries and loss for a flying customer.
Unfortunately, now we have one - a citizen who suffered both a disabling injury as well as financial loss from her inability to work, not because of the TSA rules inasmuch as her loss was caused by TSA employees not following the established rules which do not bar unmarked bottles.
If she has the stomach for it, I would like to see her join with like minded legal counsel to file a lawsuit against the government, first asking for the TSA's protection against liability be waived in this case (failure to follow established procedures is willful negligence), and permitting the suit to move forward against both the government and the individual employees she interacted with.
I think a valid case can be made to strip individual government workers of their insulation from liability claims while on the job, when their failure to follow procedures can be shown to be negligent and results in damage to a citizen. A successful change to the law from this case would certainly put a chill on the TSA workforce as well as other agents of the government who think their insulation from liability gives them carte blanche to abuse the citizens they report to.
To date, there has been little or no evidence of an event where TSA agents failing to follow procedures resulted in real injuries and loss for a flying customer.
Unfortunately, now we have one - a citizen who suffered both a disabling injury as well as financial loss from her inability to work, not because of the TSA rules inasmuch as her loss was caused by TSA employees not following the established rules which do not bar unmarked bottles.
If she has the stomach for it, I would like to see her join with like minded legal counsel to file a lawsuit against the government, first asking for the TSA's protection against liability be waived in this case (failure to follow established procedures is willful negligence), and permitting the suit to move forward against both the government and the individual employees she interacted with.
I think a valid case can be made to strip individual government workers of their insulation from liability claims while on the job, when their failure to follow procedures can be shown to be negligent and results in damage to a citizen. A successful change to the law from this case would certainly put a chill on the TSA workforce as well as other agents of the government who think their insulation from liability gives them carte blanche to abuse the citizens they report to.
This wouldn't be a matter of ambulance chasing, would it? Trying to profit off of the misfortunes of others would truly be chilling. Otherwise, I see your proposal as another frivolous lawsuit similar to the lady who sued McDonalds after spilling hot coffee on her lap claiming that it was McDonalds' fault for not labeling a warning that the coffee was hot.
As for your notion that unlabeled or labeled containers be permitted or prohibited, you have the majority of the people who participate in these discussions preferring to be allowed to use standard travel containers to pour their favorite brand of shampoo, etc. as opposed to being limited to whatever brands are available.
I see this as an individual responsibility. While I do sympathize with this poor lady for having made such a terrible mistake, my point is that this is HER mistake that SHE could have easily avoided had SHE followed the procedures CLEARLY outlined on the TSA web site. Blaming it on TSA is a weak excuse; taking it to court is an even weaker one.
Mar 21, 2007 | 8:24 am
#35
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States
Programs: DL CO UA
Posts: 163
Does the lens solution have the same aroma as the perfume? I would think that the perfume would have a stronger "scent", and thus she should have known which was which.
Mar 21, 2007 | 10:50 am
#36
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
