Woman claiming $5,000,000 from AA for lost luggage

[Blackadder]

Woman sues American Airlines for $5m over lost suitcase and $25 baggage fee | Herald Sun

 

[anat0l]

I read about this earlier, didn't know what to make of it.

 

[harvyk]

In some ways I agree with her sentiments. AA have charged her a fee for her checked baggage. Because this is now an actual fee, and not simply rolled into the ticket as an extra, I in someways see this as a "freight" charge.

So if I was in her shoes, I would expect AA to refund the checked baggage fee, as they did not deliver what was promised.

However I think $5m is just a little excessive.

 

[Blackadder]

Can see why she is making the claim, but a couple of things spring to mind; Did she have travel insurance, and $5,000,000 for a lost bag???

 

[markis10]

This is the land that allows people to sue car manufacturers and win because they confuse cruise control with auto pilot, anything is possible

 

[Fantic125]

I think I might have to sue Herald Sun for the distress it caused me reading that article.....

 

[medhead]

This is the land that allows people to sue car manufacturers and win because they confuse cruise control with auto pilot, anything is possible

That's the thing about large populations, you get the full range of statistical possibilities. Some of those statistical possibilities are as dumb as dog s***, and to them cruise control is auto pilot.

I do feel for the guy who was convicted of murder but had the IQ of salt. After years of appeals and having his IQ re-tested about a thousand times, he learnt how to do the IQ test, proved himself mentally capable and got the dead penalty.

 

[thewinchester]

You know what, while I can't stand the litigious nature of the US legal system - I'm going to side with the pax for a change.

Regardless if the baggage is included in the airfare or paid for as an additional fee (yes, essentially a freight charge no matter how you split it) - there is a reasonable expectation that the airline will take all due care and responsibility that checked baggage makes it to the destination on time.

Where this is not possible, then they have a duty to ensure the baggage is secured and reunited with the pax in a reasonable timeframe, and provide appropriate reprations until that occurs.

If an airline doesn't live up to its responsibilities in this regard, then they need to be held to account for it. While USD 5m might seem excessive, sadly it takes liabilities of this size for companies to wake up and actually take action to stop it happening.

While you might not agree with that amount the pax is suing for, if it buys future pax a better peace of mind regarding baggage then it's money i'd prefer the carrier is forced to cough up.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

You know what, while I can't stand the litigious nature of the US legal system - I'm going to side with the pax for a change.

What amazes me is that a woman can sue McDonald's for spilling coffee in her lap at a drive thru outlet in the US for not saying anywhere on the cup that the contents were hot yet you are allowed to walk on to an aircraft with a Starbucks cappuccino.

If you were to spill it in your lap during the flight would you sue the airline or Starbucks?

 

[thewinchester]

What amazes me is that a woman can sue McDonald's for spilling coffee in her lap at a drive thru outlet in the US for not saying anywhere on the cup that the contents were hot yet you are allowed to walk on to an aircraft with a Starbucks cappuccino.

If you were to spill it in your lap during the flight would you sue the airline or Starbucks?

Couldn't agree more, it's a beverage for heavens sake. The clothes & stains wash out, if you get burns they're superficial at best, and you had possession of the coffee - therefore the responsibility for how its handled and treated is yours, and yours alone.

And how dumb do you have to be not to realise that a coffee, by virtue of the beverages nature is served hot.

 

[anat0l]

You know what, while I can't stand the litigious nature of the US legal system - I'm going to side with the pax for a change.

Regardless if the baggage is included in the airfare or paid for as an additional fee (yes, essentially a freight charge no matter how you split it) - there is a reasonable expectation that the airline will take all due care and responsibility that checked baggage makes it to the destination on time.

Where this is not possible, then they have a duty to ensure the baggage is secured and reunited with the pax in a reasonable timeframe, and provide appropriate reprations until that occurs.

If an airline doesn't live up to its responsibilities in this regard, then they need to be held to account for it. While USD 5m might seem excessive, sadly it takes liabilities of this size for companies to wake up and actually take action to stop it happening.

While you might not agree with that amount the pax is suing for, if it buys future pax a better peace of mind regarding baggage then it's money i'd prefer the carrier is forced to cough up.

In principle I agree with you, but I still disagree with the fact that a $5 million pay out is warranted in this case. I'm not disagreeing that it takes a suitably large stick to actually get people to listen, but $5 million is unprecedented and frankly stupid.

Let her get back the $25 with heavy interest, fine. But $5 million is ridiculous. Whatever she lost in that case (if it is lost) cannot be worth that much, even if we valued her case contents with inflated interest (excluding priceless heirlooms, of course).

More importantly, she should get her $25, a suitably large sum in thousands, an apology (written and oral) and all legal costs paid for.

Giving her $5 million reminds me a lot about that idiot judge who sued a family-owned dry cleaning business for losing his suits. The family offered him quite a lot in compensation (more than enough to repurchase a suit). He was asking for at least $47 million (citing distress and "transport costs", amongst others).

 

[medhead]

She hasn't been paid $5 million. It is just an ambit claim.

 

[Dave Noble]

What amazes me is that a woman can sue McDonald's for spilling coffee in her lap at a drive thru outlet in the US for not saying anywhere on the cup that the contents were hot yet you are allowed to walk on to an aircraft with a Starbucks cappuccino.

If you were to spill it in your lap during the flight would you sue the airline or Starbucks?

It's very good to jump on these popular things and post them ignoring all other facts in the matter; makes for much more sensational reading. The woman clained for the medical costs incurred of $20,000 due to the burns sustained due to it being served at over 80C when it spilled on her (much higher than other companies). McDonalds wouldn't pay out and after 2 years it ended up in court and McDonalds was fined $2.7M in punative damages. The person was not initially trying to claim large amounts and the claim was that the coffee was being served too hot

As far as Starbucks goes, they were always doing coffee significantly less hot than McDonalds

 

[oz_mark]

It's very good to jump on these popular things and post them ignoring all other facts in the matter; makes for much more sensational reading. The woman clained for the medical costs incurred of $20,000 due to the burns sustained due to it being served at over 80C when it spilled on her (much higher than other companies). McDonalds wouldn't pay out and after 2 years it ended up in court and McDonalds was fined $2.7M in punative damages. The person was not initially trying to claim large amounts and the claim was that the coffee was being served too hot

While the jury awarded such punitive damages, the judge reduced it to less than $500,000.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

It's very good to jump on these popular things and post them ignoring all other facts in the matter; makes for much more sensational reading. The woman clained for the medical costs incurred of $20,000 due to the burns sustained due to it being served at over 80C when it spilled on her (much higher than other companies). McDonalds wouldn't pay out and after 2 years it ended up in court and McDonalds was fined $2.7M in punative damages. The person was not initially trying to claim large amounts and the claim was that the coffee was being served too hot

As far as Starbucks goes, they were always doing coffee significantly less hot than McDonalds

It was not my intention to ignore facts or sensationalise the matter, more an observation that given the USA is fare more ligitious than Australia, it's interesting that you are allowed to take hot drinks on board an aircraft whereas in Australia you are not.

Sensationalism in my book is a National Enquirer headline such as "chopped off head talks, lives 8 hours"!

 

[mannej]

It was not my intention to ignore facts or sensationalise the matter, more an observation that given the USA is fare more ligitious than Australia, it's interesting that you are allowed to take hot drinks on board an aircraft whereas in Australia you are not.

Sensationalism in my book is a National Enquirer headline such as "chopped off head talks, lives 8 hours"!

I was reading that per capita, Australia is a more litigious society...
Whether it is true or not I don't know, but it was the reason given by an insurance company to justify a large increase to their PI insurance