363 F. Supp. 3d 815
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Passenger Darren Sensat slipped and injured his left foot/ankle while ascending airstairs to board Southwest Flight 1239 in Punta Cana on April 9, 2017; his foot became lodged in a horizontal gap between a stair tread and riser.
- Sensat sought onboard assistance, EMTs and a doctor examined him; he later required surgery for torn ligaments/tendons.
- Sensat photographed the gap; the airline’s crew observed a horizontal space between metal slats and warned other passengers.
- Southwest contracted ground services (Aviam) to position/configure the telescoping airstairs; the airline could not identify which airstairs model was used or who configured them.
- Sensat sued under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention (strict liability for passenger injury caused by an "accident" on board or during embarking/disembarking); Southwest moved for summary judgment arguing no "accident."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sensat's injury was an "accident" under Article 17 | The gap in the airstairs was an unexpected, external event that caused the fall | The injury was a passenger "misstep" or internal reaction to a normal airstairs condition, not an "accident" | Denied summary judgment — a genuine fact issue exists that the gap was an unusual external event constituting an "accident" |
| Admissibility/authentication of plaintiff's photographs | Photos were taken on Sensat's phone at the scene and he identified them at deposition | Southwest disputed authentication and sought to exclude photos (plaintiff's expert excluded for untimely report) | Photographs are sufficiently authenticated by Sensat's identification for summary judgment purposes |
| Need to show regulatory/policy violation to prove "accident" | Not required; plaintiff need only show an unexpected external link in the chain causing injury | Southwest urged that deviation from industry standards or policies must be shown | Court rejected any per se rule — regulatory violations may be relevant but are not a prerequisite |
| Whether contemporaneity/severity of causal link requires separating acts in chain | Plaintiff need not separate every contributing act where an unexpected external event contemporaneously produced injury | Southwest argued injury resulted from ordinary boarding circumstances | Court held contemporaneous physical connection between unexpected event (gap) and injury is sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985) (defines "accident" under Warsaw/Article 17 as an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger)
- Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644 (2004) (injury may result from a chain of causes; only one link need be unusual/external)
- Doe v. Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C., 870 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2017) (applies Montreal Convention framework and Saks standard; contemporaneous physical connection suffices)
- Gezzi v. British Airways, 991 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1993) (water on boarding stairs held an "accident")
- Phifer v. Icelandair, 652 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2011) (object unexpectedly present during boarding/flight can constitute an "accident")