32 F.4th 110
1st Cir.2022Background
- Jennifer Moore fell while disembarking a British Airways Boeing 777 at Heathrow via a mobile staircase whose bottom riser was significantly higher than the other steps (expert estimated ~13 in bottom riser vs ~7.4 in others). No warning was given and no BA employees were at the base of the stairs.
- The staircase was inspected after the fall and found to be free of mechanical defects and operating as intended.
- Moore’s expert opined the riser differential caused an "air step" and a misstep hazard; he cited voluntary standards limiting riser heights and requiring uniform risers.
- Moore sued under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention, alleging her injuries resulted from an "accident;" the district court granted summary judgment for British Airways, holding no "accident" as a matter of law, and denied Moore’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
- On appeal the First Circuit addressed whether the event was an "accident" under the Montreal Convention (i.e., an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger) and whether the inquiry is judged from the passenger’s or industry’s perspective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disembarking on the non‑uniform mobile staircase constitutes an "accident" under Art. 17(1) | Moore: the unexpected larger bottom riser caused an "accident" that proximately caused injury (expert testimony + companion's surprise + lack of warning + voluntary standards). | BA: such stair configurations are common/industry‑normal; not "unexpected or unusual" as a matter of law. | Court: triable issue exists — a reasonable jury could find the event unexpected; summary judgment for BA vacated. |
| Whose perspective defines "unexpected" under Saks — passenger or industry? | Moore: assess from the average traveler / reasonable passenger perspective. | BA: assess from airline or industry perspective (industry norms control). | Court: apply an objective test from viewpoint of a reasonable passenger with ordinary commercial air travel experience. |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment / partial summary judgment | Moore: evidence establishes accident and she sought partial SJ. | BA: moved for SJ to dismiss Article 17 claim. | Court: evidence is conflicting; denial of Moore’s partial SJ affirmed and BA’s SJ reversed; remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985) (defines "accident" as an "unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger" and directs flexible, fact‑sensitive application)
- Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644 (2004) (interprets "accident" in treaty context and recognizes victim’s standpoint in defining unexpected)
- Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) (characterizes "accident" as an "unforeseen event")
- El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tseng, 525 U.S. 155 (1999) (Montreal/Warsaw Convention preempts local law for embarkation/disembarkation claims)
- Dagi v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 961 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2020) (First Circuit on applying Warsaw/Montreal precedent to Article 17 issues)
- Wallace v. Korean Air, 214 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2000) (discusses allocation of risk and rationale for carrier liability under Article 17)