Question

Sam is a business executive who flies often in connection with work. After the September, 2001 terrorists' destruction in New York and Washington, Sam flew less frequently. In response to the attacks, new federal regulations made the federal government responsible for all airport security personnel. In most cases, including at Sam's home airport, the government met the obligation by hiring private contractors to provide the security services. These firms were heavily regulated and controlled by the government. Also, in the new regulations were profiling guidelines that required additional security screenings for persons meeting such guidelines. These guidelines were partly secret, but it was known that members of certain races were much more likely to fall within them. In addition, on average, six times as many males as females met the guidelines. Shortly after these regulations were in place, Sam went to his airport and found extremely long lines at the security checkpoint. He waited in line nearly 3 hours. As he was about 10 people away from being screened, an irate passenger, Marvin, came running through the line screaming that he was about to miss his flight. Marvin accidentally hit Sam forcefully, breaking Sam's arm. In addition, Sam had his pet ferret (a small animal, an exotic pet) in his coat pocket. The impact caused the ferret to die. Marvin said that the slowness and incompetence of the security personnel had caused him to "lose it." When Sam reached the security checkpoint, he was pulled aside for additional screening. This involved waiting in an additional line for 30 minutes longer. Sam learned that he had to go through the additional security because he was returning home on the same day, had no checked baggage, and was male. Sam has sued both the security screening company and Marvin for his injuries and the loss of his ferret, and emotional distress related to these. Discuss Sam's claims, any defenses and their likely resolution.

Answer 1

Sam’s claims would not prevail against the security screening company because they did not breach a duty and because Marvin’s actions would likely be viewed as a superseding event.Sam could prove all the elements of negligence against Marvin for his physical injuries, but the presence of a ferret in his pocket would likely make that consequence unforeseeable.Sam would not be able to recover for emotional distress because his pet would not be considered as a relative. Therefore, he would prevail in the negligence claim except that he would not prevail for the claim related to the ferret.