Court declines to dismiss complaint in passenger heart attack case

Watts v. American Airlines, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2007).  During a flight from Japan to Chicago in 2005, the passenger had a heart attack and died in a lavatory.  He was discovered by cleaning personnel after the aircraft had landed.

The plaintiff, the passenger’s wife, filed a lawsuit against American.  The airline moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim under the Montreal Convention, which applied to the transportation at issue and thus provided the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

Article 17(1) of the Convention governs an airline’s liability for a passenger’s death or bodily injury; it provides as follows:  “The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”  The U.S. Supreme Court has defined an “accident” as “an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” not ”the passenger’s own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft.”  In its motion, American contended that no “accident” had occurred because the passenger’s heart attack was caused by his own internal condition that was not related to the operation of the aircraft.

The court disagreed.  Taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, the court reasoned that “American Airlines’ unusual or unexpected failure to recognize and/or respond to [the passenger’s] heart attack, and its failure to conform to industry custom and practices by responding to his medical emergency, could constitute a link in the chain of the events causing the ill-fated ‘accident’ on board [the flight].”  Accordingly, the court denied American’s motion to dismiss.

Passenger’s seating decision dooms her personal injury lawsuit

Zarlin v. Air France (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2007).  A flight attendant reseated the passenger during an international flight after she complained that the passenger in front of her had deliberately reclined his seat so that it touched her.  Without informing a flight attendant, the passenger returned to her original seat because the alternative seat was too close to a lavatory.  The passenger in front then reclined his seat again, this time “striking and injuring” the plaintiff’s knee.

The passenger sued the airline, seeking damages for “her medical costs, the value lost in a country club membership, and expenses incurred for pool membership and to resurface her tennis court.”  Air France moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the passenger’s injury was not the result of an “accident” with the meaning of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, arguing that (i) the reclining of the seat was not an “unusual or unexpected” event and thus not an “accident,” and (ii) the passenger’s decision to return to her original seat was the proximate cause of her injury.

The court granted the airline’s motion.  Although the court expressed “serious doubts” that the reclining of the seat was an “accident,” the court ruled that the existence of disputed facts made the granting of summary judgment on this issue improper.  The passenger was not so lucky with the airline’s proximate cause argument.  The court held that the passenger’s decision to return to her seat was the proximate cause of her injury, reasoning that if she had “remained in the new seat she was offered by Defendant’s flight crew, the incident in question could not have taken place.”  The court concluded that because no reasonable jury could find that the airline’s conduct was the proximate cause of the passenger’s injury, the passenger had failed to establish that an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17 had taken place.  Since the Warsaw Convention provided the passenger’s only possible remedy, her claim failed.

Court grants summary judgment against “undeserving litigant” in personal injury lawsuit

Agravante v. Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd. (D. Guam July 9, 2007).  The passenger claimed in his lawsuit against JAL that he suffered back injuries as a result of a “standing takeoff” in 2002.  In a standing takeoff, the flight crew taxis the aircraft to the runway, sets the brakes, sets the engines to a predetermined power setting and then releases the brakes.  The aircraft’s computer controls the takeoff roll and acceleration.  A standing takeoff imparts more force on passengers than a manually-controlled takeoff does but is considered routine in the aviation industry.

The airline moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the passenger’s supposed injuries were not caused by an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention and that even if an accident did occur, there is no causal link between such accident and the passenger’s injuries.  Article 17 provides that “[t]he carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”

The court granted the airline’s motion.  The court generously gave the passenger the benefit of the doubt that the standing takeoff was an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17 but held that the passenger’s allegation that the takeoff was the proximate cause of his injuries “cannot withstand even cursory scrutiny.”  The court noted that the passenger’s “own medical evidence” showed that his back problems were the result of a degenerative disease, not the takeoff, that the passenger had not mentioned any injuries in the incident report he submitted to the airline immediately after the flight and that he did not seek medical treatment until two years after the flight.

In closing its opinion, the court stated:  “The Warsaw Convention imposes a form of absolute liability on international air carriers for accidents which cause passenger injuries.  Since liability under the Convention is nearly absolute, courts should be wary of reckless invocation of the Convention by eager but undeserving litigants.  Here is such an instance of an undeserving litigant.”

Court rules that airline must eat asparagus loss

Wea Farms v. American Airlines, Inc. (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2007).  A Peruvian farmer delivered asparagus to American in Lima for shipment to Miami International Airport.  American did not notify the consignee of the asparagus’ arrival in Miami until more than 18 hours had elapsed.  During that time, the asparagus was exposed to the summer heat in Miami and not placed in any type of refrigerated storage.  Not surprisingly, the asparagus suffered severe heat damage and was a total loss.

The shipper sued American for the fair market value of the asparagus at the time it was delivered to the airline.  At the trial, American argued that it was absolved from liability under its tariffs and Article 18.2 of the Montreal Convention because the asparagus had been delivered to it by the shipper in “defective packaging.”

The court found that American or its cargo agent, not the shipper, had been responsible for the packaging.  The court also found that even the shipper had been responsible for the packaging, the proximate cause of the damage to the asparagus was American’s negligence in waiting over 18 hours to contact the consignee while the asparagus sat in the hot summer weather.  Accordingly, the court held American liable to the shipper for the fair market value of the asparagus at the time of delivery.

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.