A former Thai pop star who now works as a yoga instructor is suing Singapore Airlines, claiming that its signature business class satay sent a jagged piece of wooden skewer into her throat and damaged her vocal cords.
Briohny Smyth was traveling on Singapore Airlines flight 36 from Singapore to Los Angeles on July 28, 2024. According to her federal complaint, she was served chicken satay on a sharp wooden skewer as part of her business class meal.
She says that,
- A jagged splinter broke from the skewer and she unknowingly swallowed it.
- It became lodged in her throat, causing immediate pain, violent coughing, choking sensations and respiratory distress.
- She experienced substantial pain and distress while trying to dislodge it during the flight.
- She ultimately expelled a wooden shard approximately 1.5 inches long.
Smyth says she experienced persistent throat discomfort, vocal fatigue, raspiness, tightness and pain when speaking or singing for extended periods. An ear, nose and throat specialist identified scarring and trauma to her vocal cords. The suit seeks past and future medical expenses, lost earnings and damages for pain and emotional distress associated with bodily injury, and compensation for loss of enjoyment of life.
This Came Just After Her Return To The Stage
Smyth was an Australian-born Thai pop singer with several albums beginning in the late 1990s. She later left professional singing and became a yoga and wellness influencer.
On July 14, 2024, two weeks before the Singapore Airlines flight, she posted about returning to the stage. She wrote that she had stopped singing professionally in 2004, though “the performer in me stayed.”
Don’t Let This Lawsuit Stop Singapore From Serving Satay
Satay is part of the carrier’s signature premium cabin service, generally presented before the appetizer with onions, cucumber and peanut sauce. I’ve written about eating it in Singapore Airlines business class.
Airline caterers have produced some remarkable foreign object stories no matter what the dish is. A Delta passenger said she bit into a pebble hidden in eggplant dip and “obliterated” a tooth. Needles were once discovered in Delta sandwiches. A United passenger found thick plastic mixed into his chicken. And JetBlue was sued by a passenger who said a “dangerously cold” ice cream sandwich fractured her tooth.
This isn’t just a dental case because the injury is central to her work as a performer.
The Montreal Convention Makes The “Accident” Straightforward
Since this was international transportation, Smyth brings one claim under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention rather than ordinary California negligence and product-liability claims. That applies to bodily injury caused by an “accident” aboard the aircraft. Under Air France v. Saks, that means an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger. If a wooden serving skewer unexpectedly fragmented into a passenger’s food and throat, that should be a fairly straightforward treaty “accident.”
The incident allegedly occurred July 28, 2024. Smyth filed suit on July 24, 2026 which is four days before the second anniversary, and the Montreal Convention requires the claim to be brought within two years.
Big, if true.” And it appears it is true (documented ENT records aren’t easy to handwave away). Must be awful for her. That satay is great, but yeah, watch the stick.
Montreal Convention is basically the only path for recovery on an international itinerary. And as much as the commentariat will insert the usual plausible deniability, what-aboutisms, and red herrings, SQ is likely liable under Article 17. But, hey, she’s not getting a $20M pop-star buyout for a career she left 20 years ago. Naw, naw… expect a quiet, confidential out-of-court settlement before discovery gets uncomfortable. (Dr. Dao style…)
Doesn’t she chew her food?
^….”the commentariat will insert the usual plausible deniability”
And, this is why these cases are handled in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. I mean, at the very least, let’s use the ‘if she weighs the same as a duck’ standard before we ‘burn’ her.
@1990
And, in typical fashion, you’ve already all but “lit” the funeral pyre for the evil corporation that allegedly allowed a 1.5-inch piece of bamboo skewer to end up in her throat.
I’m not saying it couldn’t have happened. It absolutely could have. But don’t you find it at least a little suspicious that the lawsuit was filed a full two years after the incident, on the very last day permitted by the statute of limitations?
I wasn’t there, and I don’t have a dog in the fight, but if a random piece of bamboo had skewered my vocal cords, I’d think my complaint would have been made immediately.
You’re right about one thing: this will ultimately be decided in court, not on this blog. My point is simply that you seem to have a propensity to act as judge, jury, and executioner whenever a corporation is in the crosshairs, assuming corporate guilt long before the facts have been tested. Just saying.
@D Fray — Ah, so it was you with the ‘Just saying.’ (Pardon, I may have wrongly credited @Common Sense at one point.) It’s a great sign-off.
As for the issue at hand, you may be confusing the concept of a broad corporate animus with basic aviation law. First, my personal preferences (or desire for reforms) are irrelevant here. Second, fulfilling the statute of limitations near the final day of its deadline isn’t the ‘gotcha’ you think it is; plus, often there’s ample pre-litigation settlement talks which usually stretch across those two years before a formal complaint is entered merely to preserve the claim. Otherwise, Article 17 of the Montreal Convention imposes strict liability for onboard accidents, so it’s gonna be really hard for SQ to completely get out of this one; a 1.5-inch wooden splinter in inflight food meets the legal definition under Air France v. Saks, like Gary said. SQ’s insurers know this, which is why this likely ends in a confidential settlement long before a jury ever sees it.
In the meantime, I guess we’ll just have to wait for someone to pull out the giant scales and see if the satay skewer weighs less than a duck.
@1990
Fair enough. In my professional capacity, I’m no stranger to lawsuits and legal proceedings of all kinds. It comes with the territory and is often a daily distraction.
You may be right that ongoing negotiations are taking place, which is common. It’s also common for a plaintiff to file suit before a resolution has been reached in order to get the defendant’s attention and force the parties to the table for meaningful negotiations or mediation. When those efforts break down, usually because both sides believe they have a strong case, the dispute moves into litigation.
I agree that this one will likely settle quietly out of court, as 85-95% of cases do. The cost of litigation, combined with the uncertainty of trial, creates a strong incentive for both sides to reach an agreement.
Filing just before the statute of limitations expires is certainly a way to preserve your legal rights and keep the claim alive. That said, in a case like this, the timing does seem a bit unusual to me.
Of course, neither of us knows where the parties are in the process. They may have been negotiating for months, or this could simply be the opening move in what is just getting started.
Know that stuff happens. Including bones in fish and other things. My only question is why they waited to finally persue justice?
@D Fray — Just sayin’…
@Maryland — Preserving the claim, behind the scenes negotiating, etc.
(By the way, are you for-real gonna ‘register’ for Ben’s site? Also, what is this so-called “Yowzers!” thing really?)
Oh, Maryland. I just saw on LALF. Hope you’re doing alright. Just wanted to say, I really enjoy your commentary across the sites. Thank you for what you do.
Is there any evidence that she could sing in the first place?
They have generously offered her 5000 curated enhanced delta sky miles to fly with Delta the only true premium carrier globally.