A passenger is suing American Airlines because a flight attendant fell on her. The airline told the judge the incident was entirely the fault of another unruly passenger – but the judge wasn’t buying it – and the case is allowed to proceed, even though that other passenger allegedly pushed the flight attendant onto the seated customer, resulting in injuries.
On May 30, 2021, Njeri Williams was on American Airlines flight 2123 from Washington National to New York JFK, and had fallen asleep prior to takeoff. While the plane taxied out, a passenger further back in the cabin was having a loud and aggressive FaceTime conversation – and refused instructions from the crew to stop the call and switch the device to airplane mode.
The flight returned to the gate to offload the disruptive passenger. However, they didn’t remove her immediately. They reportedly paused for a discussion with her in the forward galley. That’s when she bumped the flight attendant who was walking down the aisle – pushing the crewmember onto Williams, who claims to have suffered a serious back injury that required hospitalization and physical therapy.
- Williams filed suit in May 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking $500,000 in damages. She accuses both the airline and its ground personnel of negligence for failing to promptly and properly handle the disruptive passenger.
- American Airlines moved for summary judgment, arguing that the incident was entirely the fault of the unruly passenger. The airline also sought to cap any potential damages under the Montreal Convention, which governs liability in international air travel.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge in Williams v. American Airlines, Inc., et al. rejected American’s motion, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether American Airlines breached its own procedures by delaying removal of the disruptive passenger and allowing cabin traffic during an ongoing security concern. The judge also concluded that the Montreal Convention’s liability cap does not apply unless the airline can prove that the harm was solely caused by a third party, which it had not done.
The case has now entered a mediation phase, with a stay issued on March 25 and direction for the parties to submit status updates every 45 days.
(HT: Paddle Your Own Kanoo)
The name says it all – Njeri! Let me guess. Of course they take something that most people would just accept as an accident and sue. Something for nothing and holding their hand out. So sad – SMDH
How in the hell could you get a back injury by someone falling on you when she was seated,they will have to prove that it could happen,this case should have been thrown out at the beginning, if she did not seek medical attention when it happened, she will not win
And was the flight attendant injured? Or did I miss that?
There’s probably more to this case than we know. I appreciate whenever Gary shares examples of what’s going on in the industry because often we can learn something here.
Let’s allow the courts, judges, and lawyers do their jobs. They (should) follow actual rules of evidence and procedure, evaluate the facts and the law–that’s all part of due process. Maybe the plaintiff will ‘win’ and receive ‘damages,’ or not.
However, the ‘court’ of public opinion has not such rules. Some prime examples for y’all:
@Retired Gambler — I’m disappointed by your bigoted suggestion that the mere name of the plaintiff is somehow disqualifying to their possible claim. The identifiers (including type of name) of the parties are simply not determinative in this attempted ‘tort’ case.
@Ron — If it were frivolous, it would have already been thrown out by the judge. Maybe the plaintiff won’t ‘win,’ but they should ‘have their day in court.’ That’s our system. Some may not like it; but, it’s the best system we have. Far better than ‘settling’ disputes with ‘frontier’ justice, etc.
LMAO!!! I am so glad I retired, Its all #trash now.
it is a frivolous case, which should’ve been thrown out. the FA is a victim as well.
@Don G — Apparently, it is not frivolous. Otherwise, the judge would have thrown-it-out already. Again, see what I was saying above about the ‘court’ of public opinion. (“Burn her! She’s a witch!”)
Judge over reach it would seem. And again the biggest threat to air safety has become drunk/drugged out, mentally unbalanced, toddler maturity level people that have the public decorum of a two year old wearing soiled diapers.
But there doesn’t seem to be the same concern for this threat and you have to wonder why.
Spirit could start it’s own Youtube channel and monetize that channel to offset losses from flying.
@George N Romey — Maybe it is (over-reach), maybe it isn’t. The parties have the option to appeal. That’s our system.
On what seems like a trend of increased misbehavior in public spaces: Perhaps, it’s always been that way, just these days, more folks are able to film it instantaneously with their smart-phones, then post it to the internet for us all to witness. Thankfully, I have not witnessed anything like this in-person on any of my recent flights. Hope to not see or experience this myself.
Or, it’s something else. Weren’t you the one suggesting it was ‘Cluster B’ personality disorders on here a while back?
@1990 I’m 65 years old and began flying heavily 30 years ago and this behavior is new. While social media certainly has made it more visible it’s never been this level and this intense. And yes it’s part of Cluster B personality, which tends to be immature, emotionally unbalanced, self absorbed individuals in need of validation. Like a moron that thinks screaming on a Face Time call onboard a plane isn’t a “thing.” And BTW it happened to me a few years back in First Class until a burly flight attendant came up from coach and let the offending passenger know get off the call or they would be taken into custody upon landing in Chicago.
I was once deputy head (like a vice president) of a mid-sized organization and employees would often ask me to adopt a policy or procedure covering some kind of issue. My response was always something like: “Unless the law or our lawyer requires us to have a policy, like for EEOC or sexual harassment, our policy is not to have a policy or procedure.” My rationale was that the only thing such a policy or procedure would do is make us susceptible to a lawsuit if we “violated” our policy/procedure. This incident shows why I had my no-policy policy.
And don’t even get me started on mission statements.
This story is confusing or ambiguously written. It states, “They reportedly paused for a discussion with her in the forward galley. That’s when she bumped the flight attendant who was walking down the aisle – pushing the crewmember onto Williams.” Is there one crew member or two involved in this situation? The “she” and the “they” is a bit ambiguous (or maybe I haven’t had enough coffee this morning.) Thanks for any help you can provide to clarify.
Like it or not, the US legal system works, American now sues the disruptive passenger. It’ll be easy for them to show harm if the sleeping passenger’s suit succeeds. “But for” and all that.
To “Retired Gambler”, who commented “The name says it all – Njeri!”: You are an ignorant racist. And if you think this lawsuit is frivolous, are you saying that people with Euro-sounding names don’t file frivolous lawsuits? SMH…
@George N Romey — I’ve been flying for over 30 years as well. I’ve witnessed mild inconveniences and moderate frustration, but nothing rising to the level of a civil liability or criminal charge.
Yes, rude, drunk, abusive, and/or selfish people have always existed. And this phenomena may be something new and different, too.
In-part, it’s clear that the new technology has enabled this misbehavior. When Jobs unveiled Facetime in 2010, some must have foreseen that it could be abused on airplanes–after all, these days, most airlines do state in their safety videos that voice and video calls are prohibited.
Whether that policy is for safety, or simply for the mutual respect, decency, and privacy concerns of fellow passengers, I think it’s valid.
These concepts are apparently ‘hard’ for some folks to fully appreciate until it affects them negatively and directly. I wish there was a better way. *sigh*
@Doug Santoni — Enjoy that coffee while you can, especially before those tariffs set in!
(The best coffees don’t come from Hawaii, folks. Nope, it’s grown in countries like Rwanda, Kenya, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico, and they all just got tariffed at least 10%)
The story as-written was just fine. This is VFTW, not the Associated Press, or a court reporter. And, for the most part, we’re just here to banter on topical updates related to the aviation, hotel, and credit card industries.
On ‘pronouns,’ I know that’s ‘confusing’ for some folks–so, I hope that wasn’t an attempt at far-right ‘culture war’ talking-points, because I’ll happily debate anyone who wants to ‘get into’ that. Long story short: Let people refer to themselves however they want to. You do you. Anyway, feel free to feed me your ‘animus,’ if you wish. I’m always hungry. Remember: Engage or ignore. That’s always your choice. And many thanks as always to Gary for hosting.
@Alex L — This guy gets it. Thank you, sir.
What @Alex L said. I was like “why would you sue?” but I suppose if one is asleep and ends up with serious back injuries, they want to sue somebody. When I would watch Judge Judy years ago there were cases like this — she’d find against whoever, they’d be like “Well, this other person was responsible.” “Well, you’re the one in court and I found judgement against you, you can sue them to recover the damages.”
I figure trying to use the Montreal Convention to cap damages for a plane that hasn’t even taken off yet is bunk.
As for if the airline should be found responsible? I mean, I wasn’t on the plane and neither was the judge. I have no idea if they were having a discussion and she suddenly pushed the attendant (which would lean to me toward the airline not being as responsible), or if they were arguing (in which case I could see the argument that the airline should not be having a heated argument in the aisle, they should have finished kicking her off the plane). And it might make some difference if it was a push (as in the headline) or a bump (as in the article text).
All that said, the view that the person who did the pushing should be fully responsible — I don’t have a counterargument for this, and I do think it’s a valid argument.
That said, the airline hasn’t actually been found to owe anything yet — the case is just allowed to proceed. I guess we’ll see how it goes!
Oh…
@ron regarding “if she did not seek medical attention when it happened, she will not win”, the article says she was hospitalized and required physical therapy.
@Retired Gambler.. a) What difference does their name make? b) “Something for nothing and holding their hand out.” — they were hospitalized and required physical therapy. I’d agree with you (other than the comment on their name) if they just had someone fall on them and that was that, but they don’t seek “something for nothing”… they were injured enough to require physical therapy. I don’t think someone is going to go as far as to get physical therapy to be an ambulance chaser or whatever.
1990: I truly appreciate your posts. Keep it up.
I may have posted this before. I don’t have a lot of short-term memory these days
@hwertz — Regardless of your theory, the Montreal Convention doesn’t apply to domestic flights (like the one in-question here, DCA-JFK, domestic US); if it were an international flight, it may.
As for this case, the court may determine full or partial liability. The airline could then sue the passenger ‘who did the pushing’ to reclaim their losses, etc. However, clearly, the airline has the ‘deeper pockets’ compared to the average passenger. Of course, that’s why they were sued, too.
As to the other commenters (*cough* @Ron *cough*), who failed to even read Gary’s post, yeah, once again, court of public opinion, people don’t care enough to actually get their facts straight before sharing bad ideas (alas, one more time… “Burn her! She’s a witch!”)