A Puerto Rican woman is reportedly suing American Airlines for 15 million clams after the airline allegedly served her a "lizard airline meal" (link to full story at bottom). In this bizarre story, the lady, Monserrate Luna, says "she ate a lizard that was served in her in-flight meal."Luna says that she was catching a movie on a flight from JFK Airport in the Big Apple to San Juan, Puerto Rico, and that she ordered the chicken for her meal. No word whether the movie was Airplane! or some different picture. Regardless, Luna says a lizard was in her chicken dinner and that she "unintentionally chomped" on the little creature (it's good to know that she didn't mean to do it).
American Airlines' defense appears to be two-fold. First, the airline says that what Luna thought was a lizard was merely a chicken skin. And with such a striking resemblace between chicken skin and a four-legged reptile, you have to think that defense is airtight (or NOT).
But if that one doesn't fly, the airline's fallback is the ol' "feather defense," with the airline's attorney claiming that "there may have been some feathers in there, or what looked like feathers, but there was no lizard." So let me get this straight: As long as the lady only consumed some pesky little bird feathers, that makes everything OK? Since, after all, it wasn't a lizard!
Final thought: The linked story indicates that Luna not only "chomped" on the lizard (unintentionally, mind you), but also "ate" it. Why should she follow with the swallow? She wouldn't be able to claim that she ate a lizard unless she knew it was a lizard before swallowing. So while the chomp may have been "unintentional," how could the swallow have been? The jury's going to have to sort this one out!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20024394-504083.html
Posts
