U.S. DISTRCT COURT DENIES HAWAIIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TURBULANCE-RELATED NEGLIGENCE CASE
September 19, 2022
On August 24, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (the “Court”) denied Hawaiian Airlines’ (“Hawaiian”) motion for summary judgment involving damages due to a turbulent flight. During the flight, the fasten seatbelts sign was turned on and an announcement was made while the Plaintiff was on his way back to his seat from the restroom. The Plaintiff claimed it took him several minutes to return to his seat due to the airplane wobbling, and that when he returned, he attempted to fasten his seatbelt, but did not succeed. Consequently, when the flight encountered more turbulence, the Plaintiff was allegedly ejected from his seat and injured. The Plaintiff also alleged that multiple other passengers were similarly injured due to the turbulence and that a flight attendant near the Plaintiff during the incident also allegedly hit the ceiling during the turbulence.
The Plaintiff alleged two claims for negligence and strict liability under the Montreal Convention (specifically Article 17(1), which provides that “an air 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”). Hawaiian argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because the incident could not be considered an “accident” under the Montreal Convention and therefore did not fall within the scope of Article 17. Specifically, Hawaiian asserted that the Plaintiff did not have a right to recover damages because (1) turbulence preceded by a warning to passengers to fasten seatbelts is not “unusual or unexpected”; (2) the Plaintiff’s injuries could only be attributed to his own failure to fasten his seatbelt rather than an external event; and (3) even if the accident occurred, it did not cause the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court summarily denied these arguments, instead finding that there were several factual disputes between the parties such as to whether the Plaintiff was negligent and if he was, whether his own negligence caused his injuries, requiring that the case be considered further. Accordingly, the Court denied Hawaiian’s motion for summary judgment.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr (esahr@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6622) or Drew Derco (dderco@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6665).
Share This Post
Authors
