A passenger who helped subdue Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “Underwear Bomber” who tried to take down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas 2009, is suing Delta Airlines (who owned Northwest at the time) and Air France-KLM for negligence for “allowing a bomber to board their aircraft with an explosive device.”
Theophilus Maranga (who also named Abdulmutallab as a defendant), claimed that in the struggle, he lost a tooth, injured his ribs, developed permanent hand numbness and neck pain, and now suffers from “numerous psychological injuries.”
Maranga’s attorney calls him a hero who risked his life to save others, and claims that the airlines “want to play cheap.”
I will reserve my own comments until others have had their say.
I vote no since airlines don’t manage security at airports anywhere I’ve been. Wrong defendants; I think he deserves to win against the correct folks, but at the same time don’t want him to because it’ll tighten up security even more.
Would it change your opinion to learn that the United States cannot be sued unless it allows the suit?
Do you mean that it’s all right to sue the airlines since he can’t sue the government? No, that wouldn’t make a difference.
And after all, wasn’t he just saving his own life?
There are three possible defendants*: The guy with the bomb, the airline who let a guy with a bomb onto the plane, and the TSA who let the guy with a bomb into the secured part of the airport. (* if you could find out who they were, there’s also whoever supplied the bomb or bomb materials… good luck with THAT, though. Also theoretically possible is the individual TSA agent who let the bomber through… but unless it was done intentionally, qualified immunity applies.)
So, the TSA, as an arm of the United States, has sovereign immunity from suit, and drops out, leaving the airline and the bomber as defendants. Meaning the plaintiff has named all possible defendants.
Hm, I don’t know a lot about this area of the law, but I believe the U.S. government has waived its sovereign immunity for this sort of suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. So the TSA is a possible defendant (although not liable for punitive damages, which is maybe what he wants).
I also lack experience with the FTCA, but I believe the U.S. probably would be able to claim sovereign immunity based on 28 U.S.C. 2680(a), with the relevent test spelled out in Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S. 531, 536 1988. Since a federal statute or regulation did not specify that underwear was to be searched, the TSA agent who declined to search the underwear bomber’s undergarments was exercising discretion. YMMV, and I suppose we’ll have to wait until the guy’s lawyers and the airline’s lawyers get it all hashed out.
Ah, I think you’re correct, based on your Berkovitz citation.
Not at all, you’ve missed my point entirely. Every airport I’ve been at has *airport* security, not *airline* security. The airline has no control over whether the bomber gets on board, and therefore should not be sued for the bomber getting on board.
If, however, that’s not the case, then the airline is the correct target.
Also I’m completely conflicted on whether I think the TSA ought to be blamed. They wouldn’t have been allowed to do underwear checks before even though it was an eventuality that there’d be a shoe bomber. I suspect this is an unfortunate case that’s going to fuck up our civil liberties a bit more and there’s nothing to be done for it.
And the passenger shouldn’t be treated as having acted to save only himself, it’s not the same at all. He could’ve left it to airline personnel or other passengers and probably been unharmed. He does deserve a reward for his actions; it’s too bad the typical airline bomber doesn’t have deep pockets to pay restitution to the guy who stopped him.
The airline has COMPLETE control over who gets on, or does not get on, their airplane(s).
As owner/lessor and operator of the vehicle in which they carry passengers, they have a duty to convey those passengers safely from point of origin to point of destination, and a failure to do so creates legal liability (the exact nature of which depends, in large part, on the carriage contract.)
Is the airline meeting its duty, with regard to bombers, by relying on the TSA’s security screening? Perhaps… but compliance with industry standard DOES NOT convey immunity from negligence liability. It is an indicator (usually a pretty strong one) that reasonable care has been taken, but is not conclusive proof of it.
Note: Typically, an intervening criminal act separates an act of negligence from liability. Compare, for example, if I negligently park my car, forgetting to set the parking brake, and it rolls across the parking lot and hits someone else’s car… I’d be liable. But if I leave the keys in it, and someone hops in it to steal it, and drives into someone else’s car, I’m probably not liable (YMMV, states can (and do) have different rules.)
I would think that the negligence on the part of the airline was not having enough security personnel to subdue the bomber, thus requiring a passenger to step in and help.
It seems to me that effect of that would not be to make airport security more onerous, but to encourage airlines to increase the self-defense training of airline personnel, which might actually make people feel safer.
“I can’t believe those TSA idiots took away a cupcake!”
“I can’t believe those TSA idiots didn’t check this guy’s underwear!”
Not only should this guy’s suit be thrown out, he and his lawyer should be thrown out of a plane.
I dunno. If he was in a position to subdue the terrorist, then a security guard should have been in a position to do it for him. Makes enough sense to me. I’m not sure how realistic that expectation is, but I don’t see how it could be so unrealistic that a lawsuit is groundless.
Without knowing whether the airlines have already offered to pay some or all of Mr. Maranga’s medical expenses, it’s hard to say if they are “playing cheap” or what (but I find it hard to believe they just thanked him and wished him well). And while I would not like to encourage non-cooperation in emergencies, he apparently acted of his own free will. (I certainly would, if I thought it would save my a**). Finally, call me a cold-hearted s.o.b., but whenever I hear lawyers spouting terms like “psychological injuries” the only thing I hear is “Ka-ching”.
I’m not so sure that I would write off “psychological injuries”… knowing that one came close to blowing up in a plane might leave a scar… especially if you were not usually the sort of person who subdues terrorists while traveling.
Oh, I believe there can be legitimate psychological injury, but without knowing the specifics of this case, I tend to be more cynical than sympathetic. If this fellow has been under psychiatric care for PTSD then by all means, the airlines should share some of the responsibility for covering the costs. But it seems society has gotten to the point where people expect monetary compensation for any and everything bad that happens, whether the injuries (damages) are quantifiable or not. Everyone on that plane may have been “scarred” by the prospect of nearly being blown up. Do they all have the right to sue for compensation? Are they entitled to compensation because a) the TSA failed to check some guy’s underwear that day (even though up to this point nobody had ever thought to check anyone’s underwear), or b) because the airline was too cheap to position a security guard every 10 or so rows just in case they had to subdue a terrorist, or c) just because it was, well… traumatic? And I reiterate, we really don’t know what the specifics are in this case. My little screed may be entirely misplaced.
Yes and no. The guy should be compensated and the airline needs to be severly sanctioned for their failures. It is up to them to provide safety and security.
On the other hand, since that won’t happen, as Tombstone Technology, that is, paying off lawsuits is cheaper than upgrading security, this fellow saved his own life, so having made that choice – to not die – he gets to suffer from not perishing. Tough.
This is what you get when you build legal system which allows suing for even the dumbest sort of things.