SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - Southwest Airlines and its employees aren’t liable for the death of a passenger who suffered a pulmonary embolism in the lavatory of a plane, even though they delayed providing medical care until after the plane landed because the pilots thought he was a security threat.
A California appeals court, citing federal law shielding airline employees from liability stemming from their response to a security threat, upheld a jury verdict in Southwest’s favor.
Flight attendants on a Southwest flight from Oakland to Orange County, Calif., in 2014 were called to the rear of the plane after someone reported a person crying in the rear bathroom. They were unable to communicate with the person and when they looked through a peephole in the latch, they saw a man sitting on the toilet with his head resting on the sink, apparently crying.
They alerted the captain after they couldn’t push the folding door open and thought the man was blocking it with his feet. The plane was on final approach and the captain declared a security threat, which required the attendants to empty the plane of passengers on landing before they attended to the man in the lavatory. Only then did they discover the passenger, Richard Ilczyszyn, had suffered a “massive” pulmonary embolism which led to cardiac arrest and death.
Ilczyszyn’s family sued Southwest, two pilots and four flight attendants for negligence, claiming the man would have lived had they provided him with oxygen and other care after they discovered him in the lavatory. A trial judge dismissed the claims against the pilots and limited trial testimony to events until the pilots declared a security threat, citing Transportation Security Act, and Civil Code Section 47. That law protects airline employees from liability over anything they say related to an on-board security threat.
The jury found Southwest negligent but decided the plaintiffs had failed to prove that negligence caused Ilczyszyn’s death. The family appealed, but California’s First Appellate District, Division One, in an opinion published June 28, upheld the defense verdict.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the trial court misinterpreted Section 47 to include liability stemming from actions taken by the flight attendants. The federal statute applies only to communications between airline personnel and police and safety officials, the plaintiffs argued. The jury should have been able to hear evidence about what happened after the pilots declared a security threat and Ilczyszyn was treated for the embolism, they argued.
The appeals court disagreed, saying the flight attendants and Southwest were immune to liability over actions they took after they explained the situation as they understood it to the pilots and the security threat was declared. The jury rightfully was informed not to speculate about what happened after that, the appeals court ruled, since any actions the flight attendants took were based upon the pilots’ orders.
A plaintiff expert testified Ilczyszyn might have survived if the flight attendants had removed the door and provided him with oxygen. Southwest’s medical expert testified he suffered a massive pulmonary embolism that wasn’t survivable without clot-removing drugs available only in an emergency room, however.
The appeals court cited a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Air Wisconsin that held airline personnel have the same level of protection as journalists under the landmark Times v. Sullivan case, which requires libel plaintiffs to prove they wrote something with actual knowledge it was false.
“The importance of this immunity cannot be overstated,” the appeals court said. “Air carriers and their employees are ideally positioned to provide timely, useful threat information to TSA agents because they directly interact with each passenger.”