PHILADELPHIA – Spirit Airlines has denied liability for allegations made by a Georgia man, who claimed he was sexually assaulted by one of its flight attendants during a plane trip from Myrtle Beach, S.C. to Philadelphia.
M.B. of Atlanta first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 29 versus Spirit Airlines, Inc. of Miramar, Fla. and John Doe No. 1.
“On June 30, 2021, plaintiff, M.B., was a passenger on defendant’s, Spirit Airlines, Flight No. 3031 from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff had purchased his ticket for this flight a few weeks earlier. Plaintiff was seated in Row 26 towards the rear of the airplane. During the flight, defendant, John Doe No. 1, a male flight attendant on Spirit Airlines Flight No. 3031 approached plaintiff and asked him if he wanted water. Plaintiff said, ‘Yes, thank you’ and offered his credit card for payment of the water. John Doe No. 1 waived plaintiff off, provided him with water and did not charge him for it,” the suit said.
“John Doe No. 1 then soon returned, winked at plaintiff and pushed mini-bottles of Jack Daniels into his chest. Plaintiff found this odd but did not think too much of it at the time. John Doe No. 1 returned another time and again offered plaintiff Jack Daniels. A few minutes later, John Doe No. 1 walked by plaintiff’s seat and placed a balled-up napkin on his tabletop. Plaintiff opened the napkin which had a phone number on it.”
M.B. continued that Doe called him to the back of the plane, in a private area behind the bathrooms. When plaintiff went to the back of the plane where John Doe No. 1 had called for him, he says John Doe No. 1 looked around and then, without warning, grabbed, groped and fondled his penis and private area, before trying to unzip his pants.
At this point, the plaintiff said he was “shocked, embarrassed, humiliated and violated from the sexual assault by John Doe No. 1” before backing away and walking over to the bathroom to compose himself and think about what happened.
The plaintiff added he then left the bathroom and returned to his seat, wanting to report the assault but realizing that he did not even know the flight attendant’s name.
Then, he recalled that he had a number from the napkin that John Doe No. 1 had given him, so he texted him to discover it. According to the plaintiff, the following is the text message exchange which occurred:
• M.B.: “I didn’t get your name?”
• John Doe No. 1: “Hey this is my number.”
• M.B.: “What’s your name so I can save your number?”
• John Doe No. 1: “Alex. What are you doing after the flight??”
• M.B.: “Just going to see family.”
• John Doe No. 1: “Ohh. Alex. What is yours?”
• M.B.: “When you asked me to come to the bathroom and you touched my penis, that was very bold of you. Are you always that straightforward? LOL. You stay in Philly?
• John Doe No. 1: “No way am sorry. Am very discreet.”
• M.B: “Ohhhh I seeeee.”
• John Doe No. 1: “Am sorry man I didn’t mean to be disrespectful.”
• M.B.: “It caught me off guard.”
“The plane landed in Philadelphia, where plaintiff deplaned and went to his mother’s home. As plaintiff was so upset and distraught over the assault upon him, he shared with his mother what had happened to him. After talking about it, plaintiff returned to the airport and reported the assault to the Philadelphia Airport Police. The airport police indicated that as the assault occurred in the air, plaintiff needed to report the assault to the FBI, which plaintiff did,” the suit stated.
“Prior to June 30, 2021, defendant, Spirit Airlines, knew or should have known about the sexual abuse being committed by its employee, representative and/or agent, John Doe No. 1, and his propensities to sexual violence, physical violence and sexual deviance. The violent and sexual assault of plaintiff should and could have been prevented if Spirit Airlines had employed and implemented reasonable and appropriate safety measures to ensure the safety and security of their customers, including plaintiff.”
UPDATE
The airline filed an answer to the complaint on Jan. 10, denying the plaintiff’s allegations in their entirety and asserting 20 separate affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendant Spirit Airlines. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses may be reduced and/or eliminated by plaintiff’s comparative negligence. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in his complaint, which are denied, they were caused or contributed to by the alleged conduct of a Spirit Airlines flight attendant, and such conduct was outside the scope of his employment and was not actuated by a purpose to serve his employer. If plaintiff suffered damages and/or losses as alleged in his complaint, which are denied, Spirit Airlines did not know, nor did it have reason to know, that flight attendant John Doe No. 1 would act in such a manner,” the defenses stated, in part.
“The conduct of persons and/or entities other than defendant Spirit Airlines constitutes an intervening, superseding cause, obviating any liability on the part of Spirit Airlines, the existence of any such liability being expressly and specifically denied. To the extent that any person may have failed to preserve valuable evidence to defendant Spirit Airlines’ prejudice, the claims and causes of action against Spirit Airlines should be dismissed. Defendant Spirit Airlines denies that it caused any or all of the damages alleged by plaintiff. Defendant Spirit Airlines has not violated any duty to plaintiff (including any relevant standard of care), if any was owed by it, which proximately or directly caused the injuries and damages alleged to have been sustained.”
For counts of negligence, negligence (vicarious liability), negligence and gross negligence (hiring and supervision), negligent performance of undertaking to render services, assault and battery, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, costs, and post-judgment interest in excess of the local arbitration limits.
The plaintiff is represented by Gregory S. Spizer of VSCP Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Zachary J. Ballard, David J. Jones and Kyle R. Brady of Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi in Philadelphia, plus Constantine J. Petallides and Jonathan E. DeMay of Condon & Forsyth, in New York, N.Y.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-04771
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com