In Quevedo et al. v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de España Sociedad Anonima Operadora Co., No. 19-13514, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13345 (11th Cir. Apr. 27, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida decision denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
Quevedo arose from a severe turbulence encounter on an international flight that allegedly seriously injured the plaintiff. The accident occurred after bad weather shut down the plane's intended destination and forced the pilot to divert. During the diversion, one of the flight attendants performed a "fast check," which consisted of visually inspecting the seatbelts to determine whether they were fastened. Although the sleeping plaintiff's seatbelt buckle was not visible, the flight attendant believed it was fastened because both straps appeared to be tight. Minutes later, upon realizing the plaintiff's seatbelt was not fastened, the flight attendant attempted to secure it, but severe turbulence thrust both the flight attendant and the plaintiff into the cabin ceiling.
The plaintiff sued the airline for damages under the Montreal Convention, claiming the airline was negligent in failing to ensure her seatbelt was fastened while she slept. The airline argued that plaintiff was contributorily negligent under Article 20 because she failed to fasten her seatbelt before falling asleep. Additionally, the airline presented evidence that the flight attendant's "fast check" during severe weather conditions was appropriate under the circumstances.
The jury returned a verdict finding that the plaintiff's damages totaled approximately $1.2 million, but that plaintiff was ninety-nine percent at fault for her injuries, and therefore could only recover one percent of the damages. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial after concluding the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to find that plaintiff had been negligent in failing to fasten her seatbelt before falling asleep on the plane. The court noted that the jury was presented with evidence that the only two people who suffered injuries from the turbulence were the plaintiff and the flight attendant, both of whom did not have their seatbelts fastened.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, highlighting the fact that plaintiff was an experienced traveler who knew the importance of wearing her seatbelt. Additionally, the airline had made sure to provide all passengers with safety instructions regarding the use of seatbelts. Lastly, the flight attendant testified that his cabin check complied with the airline's policies. The Court concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion by holding that the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
Quevedo serves to remind operator companies of the importance of having comprehensive safety policies in place, making sure that employees follow the policies, and documenting compliance with those policies when incidents or injuries occur. Quevedo et al. v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de España Sociedad Anonima Operadora Co., No. 19-13514, 2020 WL 1983191 (11th Cir. Apr. 27, 2020).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.