Court denies airline's summary judgment motion in trip and fall case

Walsh v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2011). The plaintiff tripped over a metal bar and fell in a departure gate seating area while walking to join a line of persons waiting to board a flight from Amsterdam to New York. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he sustained a fractured elbow as a result of the fall and that, under the Montreal Convention, KLM is liable for $3 million in damages. 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." KLM moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff was not injured while "embarking" and that, even if he was, his injury was not caused by an "accident" within the meaning of Article 17(1). The court denied KLM's motion. The court first ruled that a reasonable jury could conclude the plaintiff was injured while "embarking" because the incident occurred while the airline was "exercising control" over the plaintiff. The court reasoned that the airline had control over the plaintiff because the trip and fall took place in the departure gate seating area and while the plaintiff was walking to join a line in response to the airline's boarding announcements. The court then concluded that a reasonable jury could also find that the plaintiff's trip and fall was an "accident" under Article 17(1), although it admitted that this was the "more difficult question." To establish in a U.S. court that an "accident" under Article 17(1) took place, a plaintiff must prove that the injury was caused by "an unexpected or unusual event" that was "external to the passenger." The airline contended that the plaintiff's fall was "his own internal reaction to an inert piece of equipment, installed and operating as intended." The court disagreed, ruling that a jury could find that the metal bar was unexpected, and thus "external" to the plaintiff, because the photographs submitted by the plaintiff showed that the bar protruded past the seating area and was similar in color to the floor. Like this: Be the first to like this post.

Read more detail on Recent Aviation Law Posts –

Legal notice about the Court denies airline's summary judgment motion in trip and fall case rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Court denies airline's summary judgment motion in trip and fall case?

This entry was posted in Aviation Law and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply