511 F.Supp.3d 1
D. Mass.2020Background
- On Sept. 14–15, 2018 Jennifer Moore fell while disembarking British Airways Flight 202 at London Heathrow using a mobile staircase; she alleged the final step was unexpectedly higher and injured her ankles.
- A crew member warned passengers to watch their step; no employees were assisting at the last step and no specific warning about the height difference was given.
- British Airways inspected the stairs; employees and an inspection report described the mobile staircase as serviceable, properly positioned, with good grip; photos and testimony showed the last step was "noticeably slightly different."
- Moore’s expert cited voluntary standards for fixed stairs (arguing a 13" last step vs ~7.4" elsewhere was hazardous), but conceded the standards were not mandatory or directed to portable air stairs.
- Moore sued under the Montreal Convention (Article 17) and for state-law negligence; she cross-moved for partial summary judgment that the incident was an "accident" under the Convention.
- The court held the negligence claim preempted by the Montreal Convention, found Moore failed to show an "accident," granted BA’s summary judgment motion, denied Moore’s cross-motion, and entered judgment for Defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-law negligence claim survives despite Montreal Convention | Moore maintained a negligence claim for her injuries | BA argued Montreal Convention governs disembarkation injuries and preempts local claims | Held: Negligence claim preempted and dismissed (Montreal is sole avenue) |
| Whether use of a mobile staircase constituted an "unexpected or unusual" event (so Article 17 applies) | Moore asserted she had not encountered stairs before and using a mobile stair was unexpected | BA showed use of mobile stairs is routine industry practice; Moore produced no evidence to the contrary | Held: Using mobile stairs is routine; not an unexpected/unusual event |
| Whether the larger final step was an "accident" (unexpected abnormality external to passenger) | Moore pointed to a 13" final step vs ~7.4" others and expert opinion referencing voluntary standards to show defect | BA presented testimony and inspection showing stairs operated as intended; standards cited were voluntary and for fixed stairs; Moore offered no evidence that the step height was atypical | Held: Moore failed to show the step was an inappropriate/unintended malfunction or unusual for mobile stairs — not an "accident" |
| Whether Moore met her burden to create a genuine factual dispute at summary judgment | Moore relied on her testimony and expert report and cited cases where stairs/issues were found to be accidents | BA argued absence of competent evidence that the stairs malfunctioned or were atypical; shift of burden required Moore to produce definitive evidence | Held: On summary judgment Moore failed to present definite, competent evidence to create a triable issue; summary judgment for BA granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Dagi v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 961 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2020) (summarizes Montreal Convention scope and Article 17 accident test)
- Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985) (Supreme Court’s flexible, objective test for what constitutes an "accident" under the Convention)
- Fishman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 132 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1998) (framework treating "accident" as an unexpected event external to passenger)
- Acevedo-Reinoso v. Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A., 449 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2006) (Convention preempts local law for injuries on board or during embarking/disembarking)
- Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc., 199 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1999) (when aircraft operations are usual and expected, Article 17 liability does not apply)