Nuts on board - a serious issue!

[Moody]

Running red lights is illegal, eating nuts isn't.

(circles, they go round and round, circles, they go round and round....)

The High Court disagrees ....

Whilst there can be no malice without intent, the intent or recklessness necessary to justify an award of exemplary damages may be found in contumelious behaviour which falls short of being malicious or is not aptly described by the use of that word

 

[RAM]

The High Court disagrees ....

Excerpts out of context are like AJ running Qantas - dangerous, misleading and doomed to failure.

Circumstantial evidence that is DIRECTLY contradicted by existing operational procedures in the US (the true home of ambulance chasing litigators AKA snouts-in-trough) where an airline only bans nuts within a row = No case to answer.

Any quote without context or the ratio decidendi is really meaningless. Admittedly that does not stop our beloved politicians of all colours doing it as their media advisors have drilled into them that mass media only want sound bites not context. This forum has higher standards, does it not?

Survive Law - How to Find the Ratio Decidendi

You may now restate your case:

 

[RAM]

Which brings us back to the likelihood that the passenger consuming the nuts on the Ryan Air flight, whilst clearly disobeying either of a request or instructions from the crew was made a scapegoat by the media for the serious allergic reaction of the little girl.

and to put a cherry on top:

Many people believe the air on a plane is stagnant and full of germs. In reality, the air in an aeroplane is heavily filtered and carries fewer germs than the air in most crowded spaces.
Passengers on board an aircraft breathe in a mixture of fresh air and recirculated air. The supply of air comes from the compressor sections of the engines, it is cooled and then run through filters and then re-mixed with a fresh supply from the engine, writes pilot Patrick Smith.


Those underfloor filters are described by manufacturers as being of "hospital quality." Boeing says that between 94 and 99.9 percent of airborne microbes are captured, and there's a total change-over of air every two or three minutes -- far more frequently than occurs in buildings.

You are no more likely to catch something from flying than you are from spending time in an office, classroom, or movie theater. And of those who do get sick, usually it's not through what they are breathing, but what they are touching. Lavatory door handles, contaminated trays and armrests, etc. are the germ vectors of concern, not the air. A little hand sanitizer is a better safeguard than the masks I sometimes see travelers wearing

Canadian rules only require the row directly behind the seat pod of the traveler to not have nuts - not even the entire row.

 

[drron]

There is also the science to consider.There is no Scientific proof that inhaling peanut allergens causes anaphylaxis.Yes many people report that it has happenned but case reports are not regarded as strong proof.In Evidence Based Medicine they are regarded as Class 3 evidence and only rank above expert opinion.
Class one evidence is meta-analysis,random controlled trials or systematic reviews of random controlled trials.
Earlier in this thread I posted one such trial in NYC-subjects blinded to what substance they were being exposed to did not have severe reactions to a spoonful of peanut butter under their noses.It included 7 children that had reported anaphylaxis with the inhalation of peanut allergens.

Now with all of medical evidence this is not evidence that it can never happen but that it is unlikely.

PS.In the second case reported with the cashew allergy the child ingested a cashew.There was no reason for the girl's parents requesting a nut free plane.The child just needed not to eat cashews.However the reporting of cases such as in the OP do lead to this over reaction.

 

[Moody]

Excerpts out of context are like AJ running Qantas - dangerous, misleading and doomed to failure.

Circumstantial evidence that is DIRECTLY contradicted by existing operational procedures in the US (the true home of ambulance chasing litigators AKA snouts-in-trough) where an airline only bans nuts within a row = No case to answer.

Any quote without context or the ratio decidendi is really meaningless. Admittedly that does not stop our beloved politicians of all colours doing it as their media advisors have drilled into them that mass media only want sound bites not context. This forum has higher standards, does it not?

Survive Law - How to Find the Ratio Decidendi

You may now restate your case:

Sorry, mlud. I was responding to a unattributed statement that "eating peanuts is not illegal", with a direct quote from a High Court ruling that can be found here :- http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_32/slr32_1/Handford.pdf

Now if you could ask opusman where he got his quote from, I will draw a line under your misguided inference.

 

[RAM]

Sorry, mlud. I was responding to a unattributed statement that "eating peanuts is not illegal", with a direct quote from a High Court ruling that can be found here :- http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_32/slr32_1/Handford.pdf

Now if you could ask opusman where he got his quote from, I will draw a line under your misguided inference.

Counsel is surely not attempting to unduly influence the path of justice? Whilst you indeed attributed the quote to a High Court, you did so neither completely nor accurately. That has indeed been rectified and appropriate apology tendered. The context is still outstanding, and whilst the knowledge of some may indeed be extensive one should never presume that opposing counsel will not seek to dexterously manipulate your lack of exuberance. Context is context.

One last note, short careers are oft the result of fast talk.

 

[opusman]

Now if you could ask opusman where he got his quote from

Quote? It's a statement of fact. Unless you can point me to some legislation specifically banning the ingestion of peanuts (or indeed any legume).

 

[gaz0303]

Now with all of medical evidence this is not evidence that it can never happen but that it is unlikely.

OT..I'm a strong supporter of EBM but also found this an interesting read on the evidence behind parachutes here at BMJ.

 

[Moody]

Quote? It's a statement of fact. Unless you can point me to some legislation specifically banning the ingestion of peanuts (or indeed any legume).

I know it a very long story with lots of big words, but if you can get RAM to read it to you then all will be revealed.

[I particularly liked that word " contumelious " ..... has a lovely cadence to it, don't you think?]

 

[JohnCarrWestwood]

I have an extreme allergy to Seat back launchers and It may cause death.............................. theirs...

couldnt resist.
Seriously tho IF suffering from an allergy then bring appropriate medication . The world cant stop because of your problem .

Personally I think nuts are nuts anyway ..Id much rather cheese and Biscuits..WHERE HAVE THEY GONE?
Oh maybe someone was intolerant to microscopic amounts of Lactose or biscuit carbs.
Lets all fly Lettuce Airlines and snack on radishes

 

[prozac]

If a passenger says that they are allergic to champagne are you, or Cove, or Shintaro, or Cruiser, or me going to stop drinking champagne? If I board a flight and announce that I am allergic to all alcohol are all the passengers going to fly SYD-CDG on a dry plane?

To be completely fair I would need to provide a "medical certificate" to verify my allergy. This would need to be done prior to boarding in-case the airline were not able to accept my condition, in which case I might be denied boarding. Without the acceptance of a medical certificate in advance to the airline I cannot see that you have any right to deny another passenger their right to eat a certain food.

If you are that sensitive to an allergy you should be taking your own precautions.

 

[fairhsa]

Cathay happily serves nuts. I had a couple of packets on my flight from Perth last week. I can't stand Pretzels. Sorry - if someone can't survive in an environment where someone is eating nuts somewhere a distance away, she's not going to live long. Inconveniencing everyone else going about their normal business is just ludicrous. I note somebody else commented that Asians don't get nut allergies ... I wondered why that was. Or perhaps they just don't make such a fuss and babies with nut allergies die quickly so their genes are not passed on? That would be natural selection at work.....

 

[drron]

Not true.The granddaughter with severe peanut allergy is 50% Chinese.
She also has a mild allergy to rice.

 

[prozac]

Not true.The granddaughter with severe peanut allergy is 50% Chinese.
She also has a mild allergy to rice.

Maybe it would be twice as bad were she not a 50%'er...

 

[defurax]

Not true.The granddaughter with severe peanut allergy is 50% Chinese.
She also has a mild allergy to rice.

I do not know (nor do I care about) the ethnoepidemiology of nut allergy, but this specific example would not exclude the existence of factors reducing the likeliness of developing nut allergies linked to "Asian" genetic/epi-genetic markers.

 

[Henry Perfect]

I agree with what Opusman has said. When do people who have a problem with modern living and society start taking responsibility for things. What about the parents of this child. What did they do? It seems that nowadays, we cannot do this because of such and such or we cannot do this because of this or we might hurt someone's feelings. The man was several rows removed from the girl. If an individual has a problem then surely they and in this instance the parents, should do something to prevent such an occurrence if possible. I personally enjoy scoffing on nuts but then I am of an age that grew up not being molly-coddled or wrapped in cottonwool.

I wonder what would happen if the unfortunate child accidently passed by someone who was eating some nuts and then had a reaction. What would the parents do then, blame the person who was eating?

 

[warbrook]

I used to work with someone who was refused a ticket (AUS to NZ) unless he had a doctor's certificate, medication and equipment to inject himself in case of anaphylactic shock in flight. His susceptibility to attack was low, but he was honest and sensible enough to declare it when buying the ticket.

 

[JSavill]

Seriously folks - we are talking about Ryan air, if the girls parents should have been more careful and booked on an airline that would do more to ensure that this wouldn't be a problem. Ryan air (and most of the people that fly it) are not concerned with fellow passengers at all, its pretty akin to taking a public bus and I don't remember it being illegal to eat nuts on public transport

 

[Henry Perfect]

I have a heart problem and I take my medication everywhere with me. It's called being sensible, prudent and I might be chastised for this but it's also common-sense which sadly is not very common these days.

 

[RAM]

I have a heart problem and I take my medication everywhere with me. It's called being sensible, prudent and I might be chastised for this but it's also common-sense which sadly is not very common these days.

That was your first mistake: Common Sense - it's not PC!