“I’ll sue” – woman who lost part of her leg in Don Mueang walkway incident

[bignok]

4 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

No need. It's obvious that is one of their responsibilities. 

So it's not really true then. You just made it up. Airlines sometimes check, sometimes don't.

 

 

[JoseThailand]

14 hours ago, chalawaan said:

Her legal and health challenges aside, this is a perfect example of the benefits of travel insurance

 

I know we rarely buy it for domestic trips, myself, never! 

 

But it exists, and a trip is a trip, frontier or not. 

 

The older I get the more travel paranoid I am. 

Don't worry, the insurance company would find numerous ways not to pay in this case.

[Bangkok Barry]

1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

3 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

In the original report that I read she did trip, over her suitcase. And that suitcase is why she will probably lose any legal challenge as it was too big to be carry-on and should have been checked in. If it had been.... Harsh I know, but it's a loophole the airport can exploit.

In which case, the airport is still at fault for letting her carry on that size of suitcase against their own procedures and regulations. 

I don't think that is up to the airport authority, rather that of the airline. So then we get into the endless legal wrangle of was it the airline to blame for either not making her check the suitcase, or if she self-checked was there a procedure in place to check carry-ons? And should the security check have stopped her before she headed for the gate? And is that a part of security's job, and is the airport authority actually involved at all? All very complex and a good money -maker for the lawyers. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[bignok]

6 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

I don't think that is up to the airport authority, rather that of the airline. So then we get into the endless legal wrangle of was it the airline to blame for either not making her check the suitcase, or if she self-checked was there a procedure in place to check carry-ons? And should the security check have stopped her before she headed for the gate? And is that a part of security's job, and is the airport authority actually involved at all? All very complex and a good money -maker for the lawyers. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Do we have a bag photo?

[Mr Meeseeks]

4 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

I don't think that is up to the airport authority, rather that of the airline. So then we get into the endless legal wrangle of was it the airline to blame for either not making her check the suitcase, or if she self-checked was there a procedure in place to check carry-ons? And should the security check have stopped her before she headed for the gate? And is that a part of security's job, and is the airport authority actually involved at all? All very complex and a good money -maker for the lawyers. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Firstly, the check-in counter should be asking to see any carry on baggage and if it is not of a suitable size or weight, see that it is checked in.

 

However, with the amount of penny-pinchers travelling by air these days, many airlines charge additional fees for checked in luggage. It is getting increasingly common to see larger and larger bags being brought into the cabin, especially on budget airlines.

 

All the passenger needs to do is not turn up at the desk with the carry on bag or hide it from the check-in staff.

 

This system is not infallible and is easily manipulated and circumvented entirely. Let's be honest the check-in staff are often not bothered at all. 

 

The airport security then stop anyone with oversized hand baggage at the checkpoint before immigration, and send them back to the check-in desk. That is one of their responsibilities and I have personally seen them doing this in Thailand and other countries.

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

In the original report that I read she did trip, over her suitcase. And that suitcase is why she will probably lose any legal challenge as it was too big to be carry-on and should have been checked in. If it had been.... Harsh I know, but it's a loophole the airport can exploit.

Say's who ?... If the check-in staff permit her to carry the luggage, it has already been approved. 

 

Additionally, she was using a travelator at an Airport with luggage, its not as if this is mistreatment of airport equipment - its fully expected that people will wheel their 'roll on' along a travelator at an Airport.

 

Blaming the suit-case is similar to a supermarket blaming the wheels of a trolley for failure of one of their inclined travelators. 

 

There was no indication that the lady was using the travelator in anything other than its intended manner - the size and weight of the suitcase is irrelevant as the travelator should have sufficient 'safety margins' to carry 1000's of KG such that a 20kg case is insignificant. 

 

IMO - there was a failure through lack of maintenance that caused the wheels to snag and get trapped causing a cascading failure (i.e. metal fatigue (27 years of use)) causing the 'steps to open' or guard plate to lift sufficiently to allow room for the foot to 'slip in' as the lady attempted to regain her balance [of course, we don't know that and need the video to confirm such an assumption], either way, blaming the suitcase or wheels of the suitcase is utterly ridiculous and a total 'cop-out' of any responsibility. 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

37 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Firstly, the check-in counter should be asking to see any carry on baggage and if it is not of a suitable size or weight, see that it is checked in.

 

However, with the amount of penny-pinchers travelling by air these days, many airlines charge additional fees for checked in luggage. It is getting increasingly common to see larger and larger bags being brought into the cabin, especially on budget airlines.

 

All the passenger needs to do is not turn up at the desk with the carry on bag or hide it from the check-in staff.

 

This system is not infallible and is easily manipulated and circumvented entirely. Let's be honest the check-in staff are often not bothered at all. 

 

The airport security then stop anyone with oversized hand baggage at the checkpoint before immigration, and send them back to the check-in desk. That is one of their responsibilities and I have personally seen them doing this in Thailand and other countries.

The size or weight of the check-in bag is a red-herring. 

 

These travelators are designed to carry lots of people at the same time...  a group of 6 people stood in a few sqm could easily ready 500 kgs... the weight of a suit-case is nothing in comparison, there is no way anything should have 'given' way. 

 

This was also an airport where people are 'expected' to be wheeling their baggage - this attempt at an excuse is an abhorrently outrageous attempt to avoid accountability. 

[richard_smith237]

48 minutes ago, bignok said:

55 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

I don't think that is up to the airport authority, rather that of the airline. So then we get into the endless legal wrangle of was it the airline to blame for either not making her check the suitcase, or if she self-checked was there a procedure in place to check carry-ons? And should the security check have stopped her before she headed for the gate? And is that a part of security's job, and is the airport authority actually involved at all? All very complex and a good money -maker for the lawyers. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Do we have a bag photo?

The size of the bag is nothing abnormal for carry on at any airport in the world - this is nothing more than a deliberate dielection. 

 

 

[bignok]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The size of the bag is nothing abnormal for carry on at any airport in the world - this is nothing more than a deliberate dielection. 

 

 

Normal bag.  Still dont know how she caught her leg. Wasnt looking where she was walking.

[Bangkok Barry]

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Say's who ?... If the check-in staff permit her to carry the luggage, it has already been approved. 

 

Additionally, she was using a travelator at an Airport with luggage, its not as if this is mistreatment of airport equipment - its fully expected that people will wheel their 'roll on' along a travelator at an Airport.

 

Blaming the suit-case is similar to a supermarket blaming the wheels of a trolley for failure of one of their inclined travelators. 

 

There was no indication that the lady was using the travelator in anything other than its intended manner - the size and weight of the suitcase is irrelevant as the travelator should have sufficient 'safety margins' to carry 1000's of KG such that a 20kg case is insignificant. 

 

IMO - there was a failure through lack of maintenance that caused the wheels to snag and get trapped causing a cascading failure (i.e. metal fatigue (27 years of use)) causing the 'steps to open' or guard plate to lift sufficiently to allow room for the foot to 'slip in' as the lady attempted to regain her balance [of course, we don't know that and need the video to confirm such an assumption], either way, blaming the suitcase or wheels of the suitcase is utterly ridiculous and a total 'cop-out' of any responsibility. 

 

 

 

I read a report of her saying she tripped with the suitcase and that damaged the 'combs' at the end which are not designed for the full weight of a person and suitcase forcibly crashing into them. Nothing to do with not taking the weight of a suitcase.

 

As I wrote, the blame appears to be that of the airline (not the airport authority) must shoulder some of the blame for not making her check in a suitcase that was clearly, from the photos I saw, too big to fit into their 'basket' that says any carry-on must fit within it. Staff either at the desk or by the self check-in machines. But we all know how diligent Thais are in enforcing the rules, which are only there to be ignored.

[Bangkok Barry]

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The size of the bag is nothing abnormal for carry on at any airport in the world - this is nothing more than a deliberate dielection. 

 

 

As I've said, that would not fit into their device that shows the limit of what can be taken on board. The fact the rule is ignored doesn't make it right to do so.

 

It is selfish not to check in a case that size, leaving less room for everyone else. If everyone did that then 60% of the passengers would have no stowage space. I've been on too many flights, especially in the US, where people bring everything including the kitchen sink on board, with the flight delayed while the crew desperately try and find space for all the bags.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Bangkok Barry

[hotchilli]

6 hours ago, jaideedave said:

This incident will be dragged out in court and she'll be 99 years old before settlement. They'll somehow try to shift the blame to her therefore slowing down the so called legal system.

They already are, she fell down and dislodged the foot-plate somehow, she got the wheel from her baggage caught in the foot-plate...

whatever will fit.

[richard_smith237]

45 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

As I've said, that would not fit into their device that shows the limit of what can be taken on board. The fact the rule is ignored doesn't make it right to do so.

 

It is selfish not to check in a case that size, leaving less room for everyone else. If everyone did that then 60% of the passengers would have no stowage space. I've been on too many flights, especially in the US, where people bring everything including the kitchen sink on board, with the flight delayed while the crew desperately try and find space for all the bags.

You're being silly.....    that's not abnormal hand-luggage size by any means for any flight. 

 

And... your use of the 'selfish' argument is just ridiculous as is your 'whatifery'...

If there is no room in the over-head luggage bins, the baggage is 'gate checked' - thats a very common and normal procedure. 

 

You're getting a bit ridiculous in attempting to blame the woman for bringing carry-on luggage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

58 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

I read a report of her saying she tripped with the suitcase and that damaged the 'combs' at the end which are not designed for the full weight of a person and suitcase forcibly crashing into them. Nothing to do with not taking the weight of a suitcase.

 

As I wrote, the blame appears to be that of the airline (not the airport authority) must shoulder some of the blame for not making her check in a suitcase that was clearly, from the photos I saw, too big to fit into their 'basket' that says any carry-on must fit within it. Staff either at the desk or by the self check-in machines. But we all know how diligent Thais are in enforcing the rules, which are only there to be ignored.

She 'tripped with' the suit-case??

 

Are you suggesting that the weight of her fall + the weight of the suitcase caused the travelator to fail and step to part ?

 

I'd hazard a guess and point out that i'm likely heavier than the combination of this lady+carry-on...

So, if I tripped onto my 'regulation sized' carry on then nothing would happen because the cause of the travelator failing is the size of the carry on ?????

 

 

OR, the 'combs' were already damaged causing the wheels on her bag to jam, thus causing her trip and at the same time the 'step' opened up forced by the jammed wheel of the suitcase. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tropposurfer]

At the risk of folks crying loudly; 'Too soon!, or crass remark!

 

The poor woman may not have a leg to stand on.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

At the risk of folks crying loudly; 'Too soon!, or crass remark!

 

The poor woman may not have a leg to stand on.

 

Perhaps the Airport Authority is on 'unstable ground' with their avoidance of accountability... 

 

[Almer]

7 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

In the original report that I read she did trip, over her suitcase. And that suitcase is why she will probably lose any legal challenge as it was too big to be carry-on and should have been checked in. If it had been.... Harsh I know, but it's a loophole the airport can exploit.

If she was on her phone, not paying attention will also be thrown at her

[Almer]

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Perhaps the Airport Authority is on 'unstable ground' with their avoidance of accountability... 

 

They would be rather stupid admitting to anything at this moment

[Almer]

51 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

She 'tripped with' the suit-case??

 

Are you suggesting that the weight of her fall + the weight of the suitcase caused the travelator to fail and step to part ?

 

I'd hazard a guess and point out that i'm likely heavier than the combination of this lady+carry-on...

So, if I tripped onto my 'regulation sized' carry on then nothing would happen because the cause of the travelator failing is the size of the carry on ?????

 

 

OR, the 'combs' were already damaged causing the wheels on her bag to jam, thus causing her trip and at the same time the 'step' opened up forced by the jammed wheel of the suitcase. 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds more than credible

[Almer]

Don't blame the suitcase  do we know if she had checked in, it may well have been intended to go in the hold, however assuming it was not checked in why are people so against checking stuff in, in a small regional Airport it can be like 10 minutes before it's on the merry go round. 

[Confuscious]

Wrong decision from that lady in so many ways.
- The AOT has more financial power than that lady and they (AOT) will keep dragging this trough all possible courts.
She will lose a lot of money on lawyers and courts and at the end she will get nothing.
AOT will play the game untill she rans out of money and has to give up.

 

2. The AOT still have the CCTV recordings and they will not give it out untill the lady goes to court.
It is obvious that the AOT keeps this hidden because they can use it in court to protect them.
 

A few years ago, another foolish guy tried to do the same with Elon Musk and lost in all courts.

Never try to sue something or somebody that has a lot more money and power as you.

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Almer said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Perhaps the Airport Authority is on 'unstable ground' with their avoidance of accountability... 

 

They would be rather stupid admitting to anything at this moment

You missed the ‘crass’ pun in Troppo’s post to which I responded with an equally crass pun… 

 

Dark humor…  most likely way too early, nevertheless it was noted so I responded. 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Confuscious said:

Wrong decision from that lady in so many ways.
- The AOT has more financial power than that lady and they (AOT) will keep dragging this trough all possible courts.
She will lose a lot of money on lawyers and courts and at the end she will get nothing.
AOT will play the game untill she rans out of money and has to give up.

 

2. The AOT still have the CCTV recordings and they will not give it out untill the lady goes to court.
It is obvious that the AOT keeps this hidden because they can use it in court to protect them.
 

A few years ago, another foolish guy tried to do the same with Elon Musk and lost in all courts.

Never try to sue something or somebody that has a lot more money and power as you.

 

She should just do nothing because calling someone ‘pedo-guy’ is not considered defamatory in Los Angeles federal court ???

 

hmmm….  

[Almer]

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You missed the ‘crass’ pun in Troppo’s post to which I responded with an equally crass pun… 

 

Dark humor…  most likely way too early, nevertheless it was noted so I responded. 

Ok with you now, it wasn't to early for me it was the late night, have a nice day, Englands batting so have to go. 

[Deserted]

I bet she caused it and is to blame. 

[actonion]

If this Lady gets  the  Financial   reward she deserves  then some  Thai management somewhere  will lose out  on his next Ferrari, /Rolex, etc.. So  whatever she gets, if any, will  never be enough