Scalded at 30,000 Feet
When you go through the drive-through at a Starbucks, McDonald’s, or Dunkin’ Donuts, you are handed your coffee, tea, or hot beverage with a lid tightly snapped on to prevent spilling and to ensure that if the drink is spilled, the amount of liquid that can spill out is prevented or greatly reduced. You are in your car and sitting stationary. You make the decision when to pull forward and are knowledgeable when it will happen.
Why is it that when you are a passenger in an airplane, with potentially turbulent air, and you order a hot beverage you are handed a small cup that is hard to transfer from one person to another, often reaching over other passengers, without any type of lid tightly snapped into place?
Katzman Lampert & Stoll has been asking this exact question to air carriers. Our firm represents numerous clients, all with the same set of facts. A person orders a hot beverage during the flight, the flight attendant gives the hot beverage to the person without providing or even asking if the person would like a lid, and the drink spills and scalds or burns someone. In an environment without sudden unexpected jolts or movements, a drive-through, more care is taken to prevent spilling than on an airplane where sudden turbulent up and down drafts are always a possibility.
Our firm has become experts in this field and will bring cases on behalf of victims until the commercial air carriers change their practices to protect their passengers.
In general, a common carrier has a duty to its passengers to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its type of transportation and its business. Any failure of a common carrier to exercise such care is negligence. Air carriers are held to the highest standard of care in their training, managing, supervising, and control of the cabin and flight crews. The crews are solely responsible for the safe and secure operation of their flights and the safety and well-being of their passengers. Providing hot beverages with the knowledge they are hot enough to scald and cause 2nd degree burns, without providing protective measures to prevent spills is negligent and the air carriers are liable for the damage caused.
On international flights the liability of the air carrier is even more strict. Signatories to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (“Montreal Convention”) agree that the Convention regulates the liability of the air carrier. The Montreal Convention renders air carriers strictly and absolutely liable-even in the absence of its employee’s negligence-to pay full, fair and reasonable damages to the plaintiff for the totality of compensable injuries and damages sustained. The carrier is very rarely able to limit its liability under the Montreal Convention because it cannot show (1) that it and its cabin crew and other employees were not negligent in causing the plaintiff’s injuries and, (2) that it took all necessary precautions to prevent the accident that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries during the subject flight, nor can the carrier prove that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused solely by the acts of third parties. This allows claimants to simply must prove their damages in order to recover.
In both cases, Katzman Lampert & Stoll have been able to obtain favorable outcomes for our clients. The amount of calls we receive show these incidents are not isolated, and we will continue to pursue just compensation for passengers who are continuously harmed by the negligent conduct of these air carriers.
If this has happened to you, please call or message us; we would like to help. Not only to help you, but to hopefully make changes in an industry blind to its safety obligations to its fare paying passengers.
5 Reasons to Choose KLS
Hundreds of Millions Obtained on Behalf of Our Clients
Here are a few examples of recent verdicts and judgments from jury trials we have conducted: twelve million three hundred thirty three thousand five hundred dollars ($12,333,500.00) arising from a trial in Texas in Hanak v DynCorp, involving a crash due to faulty maintenance of a U.S. Army Blackhawk helicopter in Italy; fourteen million fourteen thousand five hundred and 16/100 dollars ($14,014,500.16) from a trial we conducted in Maryland, in Parsons, et al. v. Midwest Air Traffic Control Services Inc., et al. involving a midair collision; and, fifty four million dollars ($54,000,000.00) involving the crash of a Boeing 747-400 aircraft in Bagram, Afghanistan, as noted above. This is a sampling, as we have been taking cases to trial for many, many, years.
We have a long history of successful adversarial litigation with Boeing. Our cases against Boeing in particular, and specifically with regard to design problems in its 737 aircraft, include the representation of many clients reaching back to the crash of United Airlines flight 585, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on March 1, 1991, and the crash of USAir flight 427 while on approach to land at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 8, 1994. Both of those crashes involved a single-point design failure that caused a rudder reversal, leading to crashes of both 737 aircraft. In the lawsuits arising from both of those crashes, our firm was appointed by the federal courts to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, to lead the litigation.
We also represented several clients and served on the Steering Committee arising from the crash of TWA flight 800 on July 17, 1996. That case involved a design defect in the center fuel tank of a 747 aircraft, leaving it susceptible to explosion from spontaneous combustion.
More recently we have litigated with Boeing on product liability and negligence claims involving the 747-400 crash of National Airlines flight 102 at Bagram Airport, Afghanistan, on April 29, 2013. That crash involved improper loading and restraint of military cargo.
Over 5 Decades Representing the People in Aviation Law Cases
In these past fifty-one years we have handled cases ranging from design and manufacturing defects to pilot error and improper maintenance, involving most of the aircraft types, makes, and models certificated in general aviation and transport category aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration. We have handled cases from trial through appeals up to and including the United States Supreme Court. First and foremost, we are trial lawyers.
Expertise in All Facets of Aviation Law
Our firm employs several consultants, including pilots, aerodynamic engineers, mechanical engineers and materials engineers, who we regularly retain and deploy when investigating and litigating the causes of aviation accidents. In addition, we employ economists and certified public accountants for modeling and projecting economic losses.
Trained and Experienced Pilots
Our firm was founded in 1968 and since its inception has practiced virtually exclusively in aviation law involving product liability and negligence claims causing personal injury and wrongful death. The partners in the firm are pilots. David Katzman holds an Airline Transport Pilot certificate (the highest pilot certification issued by the Federal Aviation Administration), and is “type rated” and thus qualified to act as pilot-in-command and to instruct others in several transport category jet aircraft. Bruce A. Lampert is a multi-engine - instrument rated pilot
This information will only be used in connection with your inquiry and will not be stored by Katzman Lampert & Stoll, or disseminated in any way.
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
Our practice exclusively involves injury and death cases resulting from airplane accidents, helicopter crashes, and aviation disasters.