Lexplug logoLexplug

Husain v. Olympic Airways

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
316 F.3d 829 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An airline flight crew's failure to act in response to a passenger's known, serious medical risk can constitute an "accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention if reasonable alternatives existed that would have minimized the risk.


Facts:

  • Dr. Abid M. Hanson had a known history of asthma and a severe sensitivity to secondhand smoke.
  • Dr. Hanson's wife, Rubina Husain, informed Olympic Airways personnel of his condition and requested seating away from the smoking section.
  • On Olympic Flight 417, Dr. Hanson and his family were seated in the non-smoking section, but only three rows ahead of the unpartitioned smoking section.
  • Ms. Husain repeatedly asked flight attendant Maria Leptourgou to move Dr. Hanson, explaining with increasing urgency that his health was at risk due to the smoke.
  • Ms. Leptourgou refused each request, stating she was too busy and the flight was full, even though there were at least 11 unoccupied seats.
  • As the flight progressed, passengers in the smoking section smoked continuously, enveloping Dr. Hanson in ambient smoke.
  • Dr. Hanson's breathing problems worsened due to the smoke exposure, leading him to use his inhaler, walk to the front of the cabin for fresh air, and ultimately suffer a fatal asthma attack.
  • Dr. Hanson died on the aircraft despite receiving medical assistance from a fellow passenger and his wife.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs filed suit against Olympic Airways in California Superior Court.
  • Olympic removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • Olympic's motion for summary judgment, arguing the death was not caused by an 'accident', was denied by the district court.
  • A three-day non-jury trial was held.
  • The district court judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruling that the flight attendant's failure to move Dr. Hanson was an 'accident' and constituted 'willful misconduct' that proximately caused his death.
  • The district court awarded the Plaintiffs damages, and a final judgment was entered.
  • Olympic Airways, as the appellant, filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a flight attendant's repeated refusal to move a passenger with a known sensitivity to smoke, who was seated near the smoking section, constitute an "accident" within the meaning of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention?


Opinions:

Majority - Molloy, District Judge

Yes, a flight attendant's refusal to move a passenger with a known medical sensitivity constitutes an accident. The flight attendant's refusal to assist Dr. Hanson, despite his wife's increasingly desperate requests and clear warnings about his health, was an unexpected and unusual event external to the passenger. This failure to act violated industry standards and Olympic's own policies, especially since a simple accommodation like moving him to an available seat was possible. The court found this omission created a foreseeable risk of injury and was a link in the chain of causation leading to his death. Furthermore, the court found the flight attendant's actions constituted 'willful misconduct' because she was subjectively aware of the risk to Dr. Hanson and acted with reckless disregard for the probable consequences of her inaction, thus removing the Warsaw Convention's liability cap.



Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the definition of an "accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. The court establishes that an accident is not limited to affirmative, overt events like turbulence or equipment malfunction, but can also include an employee's omission or failure to act. This holding expands airline liability by creating a duty to respond to known passenger medical risks when a reasonable and simple accommodation is available. The decision signals that an airline's inaction in the face of a known danger can be just as culpable as a direct action, impacting how airlines train staff to handle passenger medical requests.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Husain v. Olympic Airways (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"