Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANDREAS PLONKA, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: CIVIL ACTION v. :
: NO. 13-7560 U.S. AIRWAYS, :
:
Defendant. :
:
MEMORANDUM Tucker, C.J. October 27, 2015
Presently before the Court is Defendant US Airways’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) and pro se Plaintiff Andreas Plonka’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 25). Upоn careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and exhibits and for the reasons set forth below, this Court will GRANT Defendant’s motion.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 19, 2012, Plaintiff Andreas Plonka flew from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Frankfurt, Germany on Flight 702, operated by Defendant US Airways. The aircraft on which Plaintiff flew was an Airbus A330-200 bearing US Airways tail number 0281 (“Subject Aircraft”). Plaintiff was seated in the economy cabin of the Subject Aircraft. Underneath the seat in front of Plaintiff was an in-flight entertainment (“IFE”) box, a hard plastic box that housed the wiring for seat-back entertainment systems. An IFE box was affixed under one seat in each group of contiguous seats such that the Subject Aircraft had a total of ninety IFE boxes.
Airbus, the manufacturer of the Subject Aircraft, installed the entertainment systems and IFE boxes in compliance with a design approved by the Federal Aviation Administration *2 (“FAA”). Airbus delivered the Subject Aircraft to US Airways with the IFE boxes pre-installed and US Airways did not alter the design or placement of the IFE bоxes between the date of delivery and the date of the flight at issue. The IFE box in front of Plaintiff, which was bolted to the seat, was on the flоor next to Plaintiff’s right leg. During takeoff, Plaintiff’s leg struck the IFE box and he sustained an injury to his leg.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint against US Airways on December 23, 2013 and an Amended Complaint on March 16, 2015. Plaintiff sought compensatory damages for his injury. The Court denied US Airways’ motion to dismiss on June 2, 2015. After a pеriod of discovery, US Airways filed the present motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff filed a response in opposition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movаnt is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A “material” fact is one “that might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law[.]”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
,
The movant has the initial burden of “identifying specific portions of the record that
establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
Santini v. Fuentes
,
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s claim arises under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (“Montreal Convention”). The Montreal Convention is an international treaty that covers “all international carriage of pеrsons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward” and provides for the rights and liabilities of international air carriers and passengers. Montreal Convention art. 1, May 28, 1999, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45, 1999 WL 33292734, at *29, ICAO Doc. 9740. Article 17 governs liability for personal injury:
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accidеnt which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.
Montreal Convention art. 17, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45,
The primary question here is whether Plaintiff’s injury was caused by an “aсcident” as
defined under the Montreal Convention. An “accident” is “an unexpected or unusual event or
happening that is extеrnal to the passenger.”
Air France v. Saks
,
The parties do not dispute the material facts. On Plaintiff’s flight, up to ninety passengers including Plaintiff were seated behind аn IFE box. Fesenmyer Decl., ¶¶ 23-30, Doc. 23-3; Plonka Dep. 48:3, Sept. 18, 2015, Doc. 23-2. The installation of the IFE boxes was in compliance with an FAA-apрroved design. Fesenmyer Decl., ¶¶ 18-19. The IFE box in front of Plaintiff’s seat was not defective or altered in any way. Fesenmyer Decl., ¶ 21; Plonka Dеp. 49:19-22. Plaintiff’s injury occurred when his leg struck the IFE box during takeoff. Plonka Dep. 488:23-25.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s leg injury did not result from an “accident” and US
Airways is not liable. Seating Plaintiff in a seat where an IFE box was affixed was not an
“unexpected or unusual event or happening” since the IFE box was part of the Suspect Aircraft’s
approved design and up to eighty-nine other passengers were similarly seated.
See Air France
,
Plaintiff argues that “regardless of the unusual behavior or not, the plaintiff suffered the
injury and is still suffering from it.” Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. 25.
He concludes, without citation to case law, that “US Airways is respоnsible and should
compensate the plaintiff for it.”
Id.
According to the Supreme Court, however, “it is the cause
of the injury—rather than thе occurrence of the injury—that must satisfy the definition of
‘accident.’”
Olympic Airways v. Husain
,
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explainеd herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s injury did not arise from an “accident” under the Montreal Convention. Accordingly, US Airways’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. An appropriate order follows.