PHILADELPHIA – After having its jurisdictional arguments for dismissal rejected in the case of a Delaware County woman who claimed she was injured inside the bathroom of one of its flights from New York to London, British Airways has answered the complaint and denied each of its allegations.
Amina Diab of Upper Darby first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 31 versus British Airways, PLC, of Harmondsworth, Great Britain.
Diab says she was on a British Airways flight on Aug. 5, 2018, when the plane experienced severe turbulence after take-off and injured her.
“More specifically, after seeing that the seat belt sign was turned off, Diab walked down the aisle and entered the lavatory when, without warning, she was violently thrown about the lavatory causing her to rotate forcefully about her right knee causing Diab to suffer immediate severe pain to her right knee," the suit said.
After receiving medical treatment in France for a month, Diab returned to the United States.
“Upon returning home, on Sept. 8, 2018, Diab presented to the Delaware County Memorial Hospital Emergency Department again complaining of right knee pain. Diab was evaluated and diagnosed with abnormal tenderness and swelling of the knee, and instructed to follow-up with an orthopedic surgeon immediately,” the suit said.
“As a result of this incident, imaging including an MRI and evaluation confirms that Diab suffered a lateral patellar dislocation with bone marrow contusions of the anterior lateral femoral condyle and medial and inferior patella, as well as sprain of the posterior medial patellofemoral ligament; and a sprain of the proximal medial collateral ligament and has had to undergo months of physical therapy and draining of her knee.”
Counsel for British Airways filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on Oct. 13, arguing that specific jurisdiction over itself was not proven.
“There is no allegation that British Airways is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or maintains its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Indeed, British Airways is incorporated in the United Kingdom and maintains its principal place of business in Harmondsworth, England,” the motion said, in part.
Diab filed a response to the dismissal motion on Oct. 23 and argued the Court has jurisdiction over British Airways.
“Although British Airways is incorporated in the United Kingdom and maintains its principal place of business in Harmondsworth, England, it has consented to the general jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of its registration to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since Oct. 14, 1997 under Entity Number 2779655,” counsel for Diab stated.
“British Airways argues that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. According to British Airways, this Court lacks general personal jurisdiction over it because British Airways is not ‘at home’ in Pennsylvania, as required by Supreme Court precedent,” U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Berle M. Schiller said on Nov. 23.
“But this is not the main thrust of plaintiff’s jurisdictional argument. Regardless of where British Airways calls home, if it agreed to be sued in Pennsylvania, this Court has personal jurisdiction over it. British Airways did agree, so this Court has personal jurisdiction.”
UPDATE
British Airways answered Diab’s lawsuit on Dec. 11, denying its claims and asserting 16 affirmative defenses.
“The complaint fails to state a cause of action against British Airways upon which relief can be granted. The damages alleged in the complaint were not proximately caused by any negligence, want of care, or other culpable conduct on the part of British Airways. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused and brought about by an intervening and superseding cause and were not caused by British Airways or by any person for whom British Airways is responsible,” the answer’s defenses read, in part.
“Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by plaintiff’s own fault, assumption of risk, and want of due care, and any liability or responsibility for damages sustained by plaintiff is thereby barred or, in the alternative, should be apportioned in accordance with applicable law. British Airways did not have actual or constructive notice of any defect or dangerous condition. Any damages awarded to plaintiff must be reduced by the amount of any collateral source including, but not limited to, insurance, social security, workers’ compensation or employee benefit programs, that the Court finds was, or will be with reasonable certainty, replaced or indemnified.”
The airline argued that the “incident and damages alleged in the complaint were caused by an unforeseeable or unavoidable condition, occurrence, force or accident beyond the control.”
For counts of strict liability and strict carrier liability under the Montreal Convention, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of 128,821 Special Drawing Rights (or $175,000), plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper, and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Eric H. Weitz and Max S. Morgan of The Weitz Firm in Philadelphia, plus Vincent S. Dicioccio of the Law Office of Vincent S. Dicioccio in Bryn Mawr.
The defendant is represented by Lisa Carney Eldridge of Clark Hill in Philadelphia, plus Anthony U. Battista, Marissa N. Lefland and Samantha M. Holloway of Condon & Forsyth, of New York City.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03744
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com