Dad sues Lanseria Airport for R3.5m after son breaks arm in baggage conveyor

schumi

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
21,882
A father from Bromhof in Randburg is suing the companies in control of Lanseria International Airport and Comair after his 2-year-old son broke his arm when he stuck it into an open panel of the airport baggage-handling system.
According to a statement by Cheri' Rudd, director at law firm Rudd Attorneys, Bryn Jupp is seeking R3.5m in damages for past medical expenses, future medical expenses, general damages for pain and suffering and loss of income.
The alleged incident took place on February 9.
According to Rudd, the Jupps planned a trip to Cape Town on a Kulula flight and arrived at the airport at around 15:00 when they proceeded directly to the bag drop-off area.
While checking in their baggage, the Jupps were told that one of their bags exceeded the allowed weight requirement.
Jupp proceeded to repack some items from the overweight bag into another, while his wife attended to the couple's newborn baby daughter.
"It was during this time that the Jupps' ... son, Cole, proceeded past a Kulula employee and approached the outbound baggage-handling system," Rudd said.
More at: https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/dad-sues-lanseria-airport-for-r35m-after-son-breaks-arm-in-baggage-conveyor-20190513
 

Thor

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
36,882
Negligence on the staff side if the child passed them.
 
Last edited:

nightjar

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,492
Sounds like the parent need to learn to control their kid..
The trouble with today's snowflake world is that control and discipline are out of favour and parents (plus teachers) are likely to be arrested for as little as bollocking the little angel before even thinking about a klap.

Having said that, a busy place like an airport requires 100% attention on young kids.

RE - Jupp proceeded to repack some items from the overweight bag into another, ............
Presumably to carry on board as hand luggage; possibly in excess of that limit?
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,785
Sounds like the parent need to learn to control their kid.. I’d love to see how the medical bill comes to R3.5m
Companies are required to ensure a safe environment where foreseen accidents don't happen. The problem is that you can't sue again for future expenses or compensation and have to include it with the initial claim. So most claims are way in excess of what will be needed.
 

John Tempus

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
2,364
I think claims against companies in this manner needs to be over a million or something else you need to file it differently so the damages claims usually look ridiculous until the case gets in front of a judge who generally strike it down in value if found in favour of plaintiff.

I am pretty sure the airport have "Enter at own risk, zero liability notices" showing all around the place so this guy is wasting his time in court.
 

Nobody Important

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
6,027
I think claims against companies in this manner needs to be over a million or something else you need to file it differently so the damages claims usually look ridiculous until the case gets in front of a judge who generally strike it down in value if found in favour of plaintiff.

I am pretty sure the airport have "Enter at own risk, zero liability notices" showing all around the place so this guy is wasting his time in court.
While I agree with the sentiment, these cases are "silly" for the amount claimed, I also have to correct one of your statements.

The disclaimer posters are meaningless. As are those signed "indemnity forms" that schools love to ask parents to sign. You cannot sign away criminal liability by private agreement, that was the conclusion of a investigation in a radio documentary on East Coast Radio a few years back and confirmed on air by a law firm.
 

MightyQuin

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
13,486
Wh
While I agree with the sentiment, these cases are "silly" for the amount claimed, I also have to correct one of your statements.

The disclaimer posters are meaningless. As are those signed "indemnity forms" that schools love to ask parents to sign. You cannot sign away criminal liability by private agreement, that was the conclusion of a investigation in a radio documentary on East Coast Radio a few years back and confirmed on air by a law firm.
What is "criminal liability" and how does it apply e.g. a school kid rides in the school bus and a taxi plows into the bus and the kid dies.

How is that in any way or form the school's fault?

With criminal liability you have to prove that there was willful and reckless behavior.
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,823
Wh


What is "criminal liability" and how does it apply e.g. a school kid rides in the school bus and a taxi plows into the bus and the kid dies.

How is that in any way or form the school's fault?

With criminal liability you have to prove that there was willful and reckless behavior.
Or simply negligent behaviour. For example if the school bus had worn tires or brake pads.
 

Nobody Important

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
6,027
Wh


What is "criminal liability" and how does it apply e.g. a school kid rides in the school bus and a taxi plows into the bus and the kid dies.

How is that in any way or form the school's fault?

With criminal liability you have to prove that there was willful and reckless behavior.
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I repeated what I heard on a documentary. If you are in control of something, you have a responsibility to make sure it is safe.

I would imagine in your case the liability clearly is with the taxi driver not the school as the school has no control over the taxi. They can only make sure that their bus is safe.

In the current context responsibility is with the airport to maintain their facilities. Having machines with open/missing panels in reach of the public is negligent and no "disclaimer" or "at your own risk" poster would absolve them of liability.

The parents too are not innocent as they have a responsibility to safeguard their children.
 
Last edited:

MightyQuin

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
13,486
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I repeated what I heard on a documentary.

I would imagine in that case the liability clearly is with the taxi driver not the school.

In the current context responsibility is with the airport to maintain their facilities. Having machines with open/missing panels in reach of the public is negligent and no "disclaimer" poster would absolve them of liability.
That is correct. They should have FORESEEN it, to make them liable.

Your previous comment however with the school waiver example is not as clear cut as you made it sound, that's what I was pointing out.
 

Nobody Important

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
6,027
So had their baggage not exceeded the weight limit, he wouldn't have been distracted by redistributing luggage?
Correct. Also, had the manufacturer of the clothes used lighter material then the baggage wouldn't have been overweight.
 

Kosmik

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
18,927
While I agree some blame lies with the parents, the crux of the matter is that the child was able to gain access to a restricted area where the public are not allowed and be injured by an area/operation not made inaccessible by H&S standards. The parents have a valid case.
 

FaSMaN

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,504
... when he stuck it into an open panel ...
This read like something out of /r/entitledparents , honestly if you have kids you need to mind them, they will do stupid things, its not the airport that should mind your child.
That said there is still the possibility that there is some negligence on the airports side for not closing a panel that should be, even then at most they should cover the hospital bill.
 
Top