PHILADELPHIA – A Texas aviation company is seeking to throw out a lawsuit filed by a Chester County woman, who claimed she was physically assaulted by an American Airlines baggage claim agent at the Philadelphia International Airport last year, after inquiring about her missing bag.
Kathleen Makowka of Malvern first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 16 versus PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc., of Sugar Land, Texas.
The suit said the incident in question occurred between the hours of 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. at the American Airlines Baggage Claim Office in Terminal F, at the Philadelphia International Airport.
“On July 6, 2020, plaintiff was at the baggage claim office trying to locate her bag after her flight had been canceled. An employee of the defendant, Revonna Murray, was asked questions by plaintiff regarding the location of her bag. Murray is an agent of the defendant, acting within the course and scope of her employment with the defendant,” the suit stated.
“Defendant became hostile and was yelling at plaintiff, left her spot behind the desk, moved around the desk and proceeding to physically attack plaintiff, hitting plaintiff at least one time with two fists.”
As a result, plaintiff suffered injuries causing her great pain. She was injured, in shock and scared, according to the lawsuit, leaving the scene after the attack due to fear and pain.
“She saw a police officer enter the baggage terminal, and plaintiff was still in shock and out of breath. Unable to use her voice to get the officer’s attention, she waived an officer down and made a report,” per the suit.
“As a further result, defendant has caused plaintiff to incur expenses for necessary and reasonable medical treatment. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe physical pain, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and other incidental costs.”
The defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 2, citing diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy as grounds for the removal.
UPDATE
After the complaint was attended, PrimeFlight Aviation Services filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s case on March 23, arguing that each of the suit’s claims was not properly supported.
“Claims I, II and III are assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, respectively. Those torts are all intentional torts. Plaintiff’s intentional tort claims should be precluded, as PrimeFlight’s employee cannot be considered to have been acting within the scope of her employment when the alleged tortious act occurred as a matter of law,” the motion read, in part.
“Plaintiff does not, and reasonably cannot, plead that PrimeFlight’s employee’s behavior was authorized by PrimeFlight, nor undertaken in furtherance of PrimeFlight’s business, which, according to its website, is to ‘provide air carriers and airports with a wide range of aircraft, passenger and security services to ensure the safe and reliable operation of their aircraft and the comfort of their passengers.”
The defendant further asserted that the plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages was invalid, as it did not display the requisite sense of “outrageousness” from the defendant’s employee’s conduct.
“Plaintiff alleges only that, during a verbal altercation, PrimeFlight’s employee stood closer to plaintiff and contacted plaintiff in the chest. Plaintiff then left the scene and waved down a police officer to report the incident. The mere fact that plaintiff restates the boilerplate elements required to sustain allegations of punitive damages is not the same as asserting factual allegations which rise to the particularly high threshold for plaintiff’s pleading punitive damages. Plaintiff’s claim of punitive damages against PrimeFlight should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the dismissal motion stated.
In an April 1 response to the motion, the plaintiff reiterated her claims through her own counsel.
“While plaintiff was trying to obtain her bag, an agent of the defendant made physical contact with plaintiff, while other agents of the defendant watched. As stated in Mazur, claiming that an intentional tort is outside the scope of employment would mean an employer would never be held liable for an intentional tort of their employees. That is contrary to what the law provides,” the response said, in part.
“In fact, even criminal and tortious acts can be found within the scope of employment. As the purpose for plaintiff and defendant’s agents to be in that location was in furtherance of defendant’s business, as defendant’s had agents who were being paid at the time this happened, who were dealing with plaintiff, a customer, which is in the scope of their duties and in furtherance of defendant’s business. The intentional torts committed by an agent of the defendant should be considered within the scope of the agent’s job.”
For counts of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and corporate negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000.
The plaintiff is represented by John Neumann Hickey of the Law Offices of John N. Hickey, in Media.
The defendant is represented by Nathan R. Bohlander and Patricia Baxter of Morgan & Akins, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00990
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 201001749
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com