PHILADELPHIA – A Chester County woman who alleged that she was physically assaulted by an American Airlines baggage claim agent at the Philadelphia International Airport last year after inquiring about her missing bag, has settled her litigation concerning the incident.
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.
After the complaint was removed, 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.
Makowka’s counsel filed a motion to remand the case and add a defendant on May 14, finding that the new defendant’s location gives grounds for the case to be sent back to a lower court.
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff on June 4, a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the defendant on June 18.
On June 29, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clerk Kate Barkman announced that the case had been settled. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the agreement of counsel without costs,” Barkman said.
Prior to settlement and for counts of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and corporate negligence, the plaintiff was seeking damages in excess of $50,000.
The plaintiff was represented by John Neumann Hickey of the Law Offices of John N. Hickey, in Media.
The defendant was 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