Lamkin v. Braniff Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1994
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 87-422-RCL.
• Citation: 853 F. Supp. 30
• Parties: Helen LAMKIN and George Lamkin, Plaintiffs, v. BRANIFF AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

853 F. Supp. 30

Helen LAMKIN and George Lamkin, Plaintiffs, v. BRANIFF AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 87-422-RCL.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

May 26, 1994.

Emmanuel N. Papanickolas, Peabody, MA, for plaintiffs.

Peter J. Black, Meehan, Boyle & Cohen, P.C., Boston, MA, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LINDSAY, District Judge.

The defendant in this action, Braniff Airlines, Inc. ("Braniff") has moved for summary judgment against the plaintiffs, Helen and George Lamkin.

1. Facts.

The facts, summarized in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, are as follows.

On March 15, 1985, Helen and George Lamkin, a married couple, were passengers on Braniff flight 500 from Miami to Boston. Shortly after take-off, a Braniff flight attendant served hot coffee to Helen Lamkin in a styrofoam coffee cup with a narrow base. The cup did not have any warning labels on it, and Braniff gave no warnings to Mrs. Lamkin about the temperature of the coffee. Mrs. Lamkin put the coffee on a folding shelf attached to the seat in front of her. The passenger seated in front of her moved the seat backwards, which caused the coffee cup on the folding shelf to spill its contents onto Mrs. Lamkin's lap. Mrs. Lamkin sustained what was later diagnosed as second and third degree burns from the coffee. She went to the bathroom to attend to the burns. The flight crew had no ice packs to apply to the burns, but Mr. Lamkin applied ice, apparently from the aircraft's galley, to the burned area.

On the day following the incident, a defective coffeemaker was removed from the plane on which Mrs. Lamkin was injured. The evidence does not reveal the precise defect in the coffeemaker, except that a note on a Braniff services form states that "there was no power to brew".

Mrs. Lamkin filed suit against Braniff, claiming negligence in hiring, instructing and training of its flight personnel in serving hot coffee and providing first aid, and in Braniff's use of an allegedly defective coffeemaker, seats, cup and folding shelves. She also claimed that Braniff was negligent in failing to warn her about the excessively high temperature of the coffee, and in failing to warn the passengers about the hazards of moving a seat back. Mr. Lamkin asserted a claim for loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs offered one expert, Stephen Chapdelaine, an aviation safety expert. He testified at deposition that he had no opinion as to whether the seat tray was defective; that he had no information on which to base an opinion that Braniff's procedures or training for in-flight services were negligent; that he knew nothing about proper or safe temperatures for coffee on airplanes; and that he knew nothing about the proper and safe functioning of an airplane's coffeemaker.

2. Discussion.

Summary judgment is appropriate when "based upon the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions, `there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,' and where `the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" FDIC v. Anchor Properties, 13 F.3d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1994), quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and citing Gaskell v. Harvard Co-Op Soc'y, 3 F.3d 495, 497 (1st Cir.1993).¹

a. Negligence.

The plaintiffs have shown (a) that Mrs. Lamkin was burned by hot coffee served by Braniff and (b) that a defective machine was removed the next day. The question thus raised is whether the plaintiffs have shown enough to support a finding by a factfinder that Braniff was negligent. The Court concludes that they have not.

The plaintiffs have failed to offer any evidence that Braniff knew or should have known that there was a defect in the coffeemaker which would cause it to brew extremely hot coffee. Indeed, the plaintiffs have not even shown that there was a defect in the coffeemaker that caused it to brew extremely hot coffee. The plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to show that Braniff or any of its employees knew or should have known that the coffee which was actually served to Mrs. Lamkin was extremely hot.² In short, the plaintiffs have simply failed to offer any evidence which would support a finding of negligence.

The plaintiffs cannot prevail on their failure to warn claim because Mrs. Lamkin was aware that the coffee was hot. The complaint states that "Helen Lamkin set the coffee upon a folding shelf attached to the seat in front of her to allow the coffee to cool before she drank it." (emphasis added) One needs no warning if he or she is aware of the danger as to which a warning would apply. Colter v. Barber-Greene Co., 403 Mass. 50, 525 N.E.2d 1305, 1312 (1988). Moreover, the plaintiffs have not shown that any Braniff employees were aware that the coffee was hot enough to burn Mrs. Lamkin; i.e., that any Braniff employees knew or should have known that there was anything unusual about which Mrs. Lamkin should have been warned.

In addition, the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to suggest that the flight attendants on her flight acted negligently with respect to Mrs. Lamkin's care after the coffee spilled. The plaintiffs have also failed to show how any behavior of the flight attendants after the coffee spilled exacerbated her injury. Finally, the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence as to how the seats, seat trays or cups were defective.

The preceding discussion effectively resolves this case. However, the plaintiffs raised two issues at the hearing on this motion which the court will also address.

b. Common Carrier

At the very end of hearing on this motion, after the parties had been heard at length, the plaintiffs raised for the first time the argument that a higher standard of care applies to Braniff as a common carrier. The Court, in its discretion, will address this issue.³

Braniff, as a common carrier, is subject to a high standard of care. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has stated that "the standard to which common carriers are held is the very highest, approaching that of an insurer." Worcester Ins. Co. v. Fells Acre Day School, Inc., 408 Mass. 393, 558 N.E.2d 958, 968 (1990). See O'Malley v. Putnam Safe Deposit Vaults, Inc., 17 Mass.App. 332, 458 N.E.2d 752, 758 (1983). But while the standard may "approach" that of an insurer, the Supreme Judicial Court has not gone so far as to rule that a common carrier is in fact strictly liable for accidents which befall its passengers. The court has stated that "the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers, nor is it obliged by law to foresee and to guard against unlikely dangers and improbable harms." Quigley v. Wilson Line of Massachusetts, 338 Mass. 125, 154 N.E.2d 77, 79 (1958). See Holton v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 303 Mass. 242, 21 N.E.2d 251, 251 (1939); Intriligator v. Goldberg, 299 Mass. 333, 12 N.E.2d 730, 731 (1938). None of the Supreme Judicial Court's decisions has altered Massachusetts law to the effect that, in general, the mere occurrence of an accident by itself will not support a finding of negligence. Holton, 21 N.E.2d at 251; Wilson v. Colonial Air Transport, 278 Mass. 420, 180 N.E. 212, 214 (1932). The common carrier standard of care, thus, cannot parlay the plaintiff's mishap into liability for negligence in the absence of some proof other than that an accident happened.

c. Res Ipsa Loquitor.

At the hearing on this motion, but not in their brief, the plaintiffs suggested that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would allow this case to go to a jury. Again, the Court, in its discretion, will review the law concerning this claim.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor "permits a trier of fact to draw an inference of negligence in the absence of a finding of...