Goodwin v. British Airways Plc (D. Mass. Aug. 8, 2011). The plaintiff had traveled on a British Airways flight from London to Paris. She alleged in her complaint that, while deplaning, she lost her balance, one of her feet slid into the opening between the aircraft and the jetway and she fell and fractured her ankle. In her deposition, the plaintiff testified that her fall had been caused by another passenger bumping into her. According to the airline’s witnesses, the plaintiff lost her footing and fell on her own.
The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment in which they agreed that the Montreal Convention governed the plaintiff’s claim. Under Article 17(1) of the Convention, “[t]he 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.” Thus, as the court noted, the “threshold inquiry” in a personal injury case governed by the Convention is whether an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17(1) occurred.
To establish in a U.S. court that an “accident” under Article 17(1) took place, a plaintiff must prove “that (1) an unusual or unexpected event that was external to [the plaintiff] occurred, and (2) this event was a malfunction or abnormality in the aircraft’s operation.”
The airline contended that the first step of the above test had not been satisfied because some bumping and jostling from other passengers is usual and expected while deplaning. The court disagreed. Viewing the facts most favorably to the plaintiff, the court found that the alleged bump by the other passenger, which the plaintiff described as having “enough force that it knocked me off my balance and I fell,” was more than “run of the mill jostling” and thus was unexpected.
The airline fared better with respect to the second part of the test. It contended that the plaintiff’s fall had not resulted from the aircraft’s operation because airline personnel had not had any direct involvement in the events leading to the fall. The court agreed. Again viewing the facts most favorably to the plaintiff, the court found that the plaintiff’s fall had been solely caused by another passenger and that there was no evidence of any “out of the ordinary” conditions during deplaning that could have imposed a duty on airline personnel to intervene. Accordingly, the court granted the airline’s motion and denied the plaintiff’s motion.
Note: On September 6, 2011, the plaintiff noted her appeal of the court’s ruling.