Passenger emotional distress claim fails because physical impact absent

Atlantic Coast Airlines v. Cook (Ind. Dec. 6, 2006).  A passenger disrupted a commuter flight from Indianapolis to New York by smoking, shouting, sitting in different empty seats and walking toward the cockpit.  Other passengers blocked the aisle to keep the unruly passenger away from the cockpit.  There was no physical contact between the unruly passenger and the other passengers.

Two of the passengers filed suit, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress and other causes of action against the airline.  Applying Indiana’s “modified impact rule,” the court held that the passengers’ emotional distress cause of action failed because they had not sustained a “direct physical impact” as a result of the airline’s alleged negligence.

The court also held that, even if the passengers had sustained a physical impact of some kind, their emotional distress claim was inadequate because their distress was temporary and speculative.  The court sensibly noted that “complete emotional tranquility is seldom attainable in this world, and some degree of transient and trivial emotional distress is a part of the price of living among people.”

Airline fights back against certificate brokering

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Bauer (D. N.D. Dec. 15, 2006).  Since the early days of the Internet, various web site owners have brazenly offered to buy and sell airline discount and upgrade certificates, a direct violation of the terms governing such certificates.  To add insult to injury, these sites have often used airline logos and other valuable trademarks to promote their illicit services by confusing consumers into believing that there was some association between the airlines and the site.  Northwest decided to take action against one such site owner and has been successful in its initial efforts.

Northwest became aware that the owner of “northwestdiscountcoupons.com” was offering the airline’s e-Certificates for sale.  The airline distributes e-Certificates to passengers who have experienced flight delays and other problems; they allow the holder to obtain substantial discounts on ticket purchases.  By their terms, e-Certificates may be transferred but not sold.

In its lawsuit, Northwest requested injunctive relief and monetary damages as remedies for the site owner’s infringement of the airline’s marks and fraudulent sale of e-Certificates.  The airline immediately moved for a temporary restraining order prohibiting further e-Certificate buying and selling, as well as further use of the northwestdiscountcoupons.com site or any other term that is confusingly similar to any Northwest trademark.  The court granted the TRO.

A recent visit to northwestdiscountcoupons.com revealed that the site has been reduced to one page that meekly states as follows:  “This website has been removed.”

U.S. airline obtains personal jurisdiction over European online travel agent

TravelJungle v. American Airlines, Inc. (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2006).  TravelJungle is an online travel agent that uses software to automatically harvest information from airline web sites.  TravelJungle’s principal places of business are in Europe and it has no U.S. employees.

American sued TravelJungle in a Texas state court for violating AA.com’s use agreement, which prohibits use of site information for “commercial purposes.”  In response, TravelJungle challenged the court’s personal jurisdiction over the company.

The appeals court held that the courts of Texas had jurisdiction over TravelJungle under the state’s long-arm statute.  The court reasoned that TravelJungle’s software had been purposefully directed to access the airline’s site and its servers, which are in Texas, and that the company should have been aware that it could be subject to suit wherever the site’s servers happen to be located.

Airline not liable for passenger trip and fall

Keyes v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2006).  After the New York to San Diego flight had landed, the passenger tripped and fell while “sidestepping” from her seat toward the aisle.  She sued the airline for negligence, seeking $5 million in damages.

The airline moved for summary judgment, which the court granted.  Under New York law, the passenger was required to offer sufficient evidence that a ”dangerous” or ”defective” condition had caused her injuries in order to prove that the airline had breached its duty of care to her.  The court held that the passenger had failed to meet this burden because she had not offered any evidence that the object that probably caused her fall, a seat mounting track, “was improperly designed, built, maintained, managed, controlled or repaired.”

The passenger probably lost most of her credibility, if not the case, at the pleading stage by making what the court called ”inconsistent allegations” in her initial and amended complaints as to what caused her fall.

Airline not liable for passenger self-spillage

Medina v. American Airlines, Inc. (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2006).  After a flight attendant placed the passenger’s cup of coffee on his tray table, the passenger picked up the cup with one hand, felt it was hot, tried to steady it with his other hand and then spilled its contents onto his lap, causing “serious burns to his abdomen and groin area.”

During the non-jury trial, the passenger admitted that, after he felt the cup was hot, there was nothing preventing him from simply leaving it on the tray table to cool off.  The trial was essentially over at this point, since the plaintiff had “spilled the beans” that he, not the airline, was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Since the incident took place in 2001, the court analyzed the case under the Warsaw Convention.  The court noted that, under Article 20(1), a carrier is liable for a passenger’s injuries unless the carrier proves that it took ”all necessary measures” (which the courts have interpreted to mean ”all reasonable measures”) to avoid such injuries.  The court held that the airline had taken all precautions appropriate to the risk at issue and thus was not liable for the passenger’s injuries.

Gun-toting passenger avoids conviction

U.S. v. Holtzhauer (S.D. Ohio Nov. 21, 2006).  One danger in owning “57 firearms” is that the owner might forget that one of his many handguns is lurking in the briefcase he is carrying through airport security.  Despite making what appeared to be a honest mistake, the well-armed but absent-minded passenger was charged with violating 49 U.S.C. sec. 46314(a).  That statute prohibits passengers from “knowingly and willfully” entering “an airport area that serves an air carrier” carrying a firearm.

The case was tried before the judge, who obviously was convinced that the passenger, who had a law enforcement background, was a respectable citizen who had simply forgotten that the gun was in the briefcase.  The judge shaved the onion finely, holding that the passenger was not guilty because had acted “willfully” but not ”knowingly.”