What do you think of when you hear someone has been killed in an airplane accident? Earlier this year, in Olympic Airways v. Husain, the Supreme Court (in a Justice Thomas opinion over a Justice Scalia dissent) expanded the definition of “accident” in the Warsaw Convention (which allows damages recovery for international air travelers) to include an “event” where a flight attendant refused to reseat someone having an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke (though permitting the person to move himself). Olympic Airways is perhaps best understood as the epitome of the cliche “hard cases make bad law.” It is already bearing fruit for plaintiffs with even more remote claims.
On December 14, 1997, 75-year-old Caroline Neischer, a trained nurse and former smoker with chronic respiratory problems (including, claims the defense and some medical reports, emphysema), flew from Los Angeles to Guyana. At her connecting flight, she permitted an airline employee to check her carry-on suitcase, which contained a nebulizer and medication. When the flight arrived on December 15, the suitcase (along with four other checked bags) didn’t; they didn’t arrive until 6 a.m. on December 17. Though medicine and a substitute nebulizer was available in Guyana (apparently for $2), Neischer and her family waited for the luggage to arrive, and didn’t take Neischer to a doctor. On December 18, Neischer went to the hospital with breathing problems, and died on December 23, with the plaintiffs claiming she made a deathbed declaration blaming her death on the airline. Though the Guyana hospital lost some of the medical records, the plaintiffs won the battle of the experts, even though their theory had to account for the fact that it was inconsistent with the cause of death listed on Neischer’s death certificate. (Interestingly, though this was a federal case involving an international treaty, the Ninth Circuit referred to state law standards of “competent medical testimony” in dismissing the defense’s challenge to the expert.)
This, according to the plaintiffs, district court, and Ninth Circuit, qualifies as “wilful misconduct” by the airline. Under the Warsaw Convention, the airline cannot defend itself by pointing to the substandard care provided by the Guyanese hospital. The district court simply awarded damages; the Ninth Circuit asked the lower court to consider what degree Neischer was responsible for her own death for not spending $2 on another nebulizer. (“Court Finds Airline at Fault in Woman’s Death”, Reuters, Aug. 19; Prescod v. AMR, Inc.).
Comments are closed.