Vanderwall v. United Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14–60256–CIV. |
| Parties | Robert Louis VANDERWALL and William Lynn Vanderwall, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
John F. Eversole, III, Eversole & Associates, P.A., Alexander R. Hunt, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs.
Emmet Jay Schwartzman, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [32] (the “Motion”), filed by Defendant United Airlines, Inc. (“United” or “Defendant”). The Court has reviewed the Motion, all supporting and opposing filings and submissions, and the record in the case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs William Lynn Vanderwall (“Plaintiff”) and Robert Louis Vanderwall seek damages for injuries suffered by Plaintiff when she slipped in the aisle of a United aircraft en route from Houston, Texas to London, England. Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts three causes of action: Defendant's liability under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, reprinted in S. Treaty Doc. No. 106–45, 2242 U.N.T.S. 309, 1999 WL 33292734 (2000) (the “Montreal Convention”) (Count I); common law negligence (Count II); and a derivative claim for loss of consortium by Robert Louis Vanderwall (Count III). ECF No. [1]. Defendant timely answered the Complaint. See ECF No. [4]. Defendant filed the instant Motion on August 6, 2014. By Order on August 22, 2014, ECF No. [44], and September 23, 2014, ECF No. [54], the Court imposed a December 29, 2014 deadline for Plaintiffs' response to Defendant's Motion. In the intervening period, the parties have engaged in discovery. Plaintiffs responded on December 29, 2014, ECF No. [79] (the “Response”); and Defendant replied on August 25, 2014, ECF No. [89] (the “Reply”). See ECF No. [85]. The parties have submitted statements of facts and attendant evidence in support of and opposition to the Motion. See ECF Nos. [32], [67], [70], [76], [77], [78], [81], [82]; see also ECF No. [85].
On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff was an economy/coach passenger on United flight number 34 (“United 34”), which was operated by Continental Airlines, Inc. (“Continental”), from George Bush Intercontinental Airport / Houston (“IAH”) to London Heathrow Airport (“LHR”). See ECF No. [32–1] (Beuker Affidavit) ¶ 9; ECF No. [32–2] (Itinerary). Her flight originated in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on March 30, 2012. See Beuker Aff. ¶ 4. Plaintiff's ticketed itinerary was for international carriage by air. See Itinerary. Her place of departure on March 30, 2012 was the United States of America and her place of destination on March 31, 2012 was the United Kingdom. Id. United 34's scheduled departure from IAH was 3:45 p.m. on March 30, 2012. Id. The actual departure time was 4:08 p.m. Beuker Aff. ¶ 5. The flight's scheduled arrival time at LHR was 6:55 a.m. Id. ¶ 9. Its actual arrival time was 7:38 a.m. local time. Id. The total travel time from IAH to LHR was five-hundred and seventy (570) minutes or nine and a half (9.5) hours. Id.
The incident that is the subject of the instant action took place on United 34 en route from IAH to LHG approximately one to one and a half hours before landing. See ECF No. [32–5] (Plaintiff Dep. Tr. Vol. 2) 251:10–12; ECF No. [82–1] (Plaintiff Dep. Tr. Vol. 1) 137:11–19. During the course of the nine and a half hour flight, there came a point when the cabin lights were dimmed to allow passengers to sleep. Mtn. at 3 ¶ 7; ECF No. [81] (Plaintiffs' Counter–Statement and Statement of Facts) ¶ 7. There remained some ambient lighting. Mtn. at 3 ¶ 7; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 7, 10.a; Plaintiff Dep. Tr. Vol. 2 252:5–10. It was standard practice at Continental and the airline industry in March 2012 for cabin lighting to be dimmed to the night setting for flights with schedules comparable to United 34. Mtn. at 16–17 ¶¶ 15–16; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ ¶ 15–16. The night lighting on United 34 had been Plaintiff's experience on previous transatlantic flights and she was not surprised by the darkened and quiet cabin. Mtn. at 3 ¶ 7; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 7. See also Plaintiff Dep. Tr. Vol. 2 245:3–246:7.
Plaintiff left her seat to use the lavatory toward the rear of the airplane. Mtn. at 4 ¶ 9; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 9; ECF No. [32–6] (Plaintiff's Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories) No. 6. The lavatory was a short distance, no more than two rows or a couple of yards, directly behind Plaintiff's seat. Plaintiff Dep. Tr. Vol. 2 254:14–255:6. Plaintiff made her way to the lavatory without incident. Mtn. at 4–5 ¶ 10; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 10. She did not notice anything on the floor on her way to the lavatory. Plaintiff Dep. Tr. Vol. 2 257:5–258:22. She spent only approximately five to ten minutes in the lavatory. Pl. Dep. Tr. Vol. 2 259:17–21. When Plaintiff exited the lavatory, the lavatory light illuminated the aisle floor around it. Mtn. at 4–5 ¶ 10; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 10. To return to her seat, Plaintiff took three or four steps in the aisle toward the front of the aircraft. Plaintiff Dep. Tr. Vol. 2 266:11–13. Plaintiff stepped on something with her right foot, fell to the side and experienced a twisting and popping in her right knee. Mtn. at 4–5 ¶ 10; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 10. She later learned that she had torn her anterior cruciate ligament
Plaintiff describes the “trash” she stepped on as a piece of translucent plastic, no specific color but “more clear” such that “you could see through it,” but not as clear as glass. Plaintiff Dep. Tr. Vol. 1 94:7–104:6. It was a “fragmented,” “ripped” or torn “piece of plastic” (not a square, rectangle, round or oval), “thinner than a business card” and maybe only as thick as a piece of copy paper or a magazine page, more like “Saran wrap” (but not “wax paper”). Id. In terms of its size, the scrap of plastic had dimensions smaller than six inches by three inches, appearing to be the size of a wadded up paper towel. Id.
The parties dispute whether and to what extent Plaintiff is a “frequent flyer.” See Mtn. at 5–6 ¶ 12; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 12. Regardless of her status, Plaintiff states that, as a child, she traveled overseas very frequently, and that, currently, she flies domestically twelve times per year and has flown from the United States to Europe on several occasions. Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 12.b.
As was standard practice at Continental, a third party vendor at IAH under contract with Continental cleaned the cabin of United 34 on March 30, 2012 prior to any passenger boarding and departure from IAH. Mtn. at 6 ¶ 13; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 13. The vendor's cleaning at IAH for international “turn” flights (flights that are unloaded after arrival at the gate and then prepared for departure again), like United 34, consisted of a variety of tasks and it was mandatory to “remove trash, crumbs, debris from floor” and to “[v]acuum.” Id. It was standard practice at Continental and in the airline industry in March 2012 that cabin floors for international “turn” flights were clean and free of trash, crumbs and debris prior to the boarding of passengers. Id. ¶ 14.
George Bush Intercontinental Airport, like most U.S. airports, has a variety of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience stores, food courts and duty-free stores inside the post-security concourses. Mtn. at 8 ¶ 21; Pls. Stat. Facts ¶ 21. Passengers may purchase a vast array of items and then use or consume them in-flights. Id. Many of the items commonly are wrapped in plastic shrink-wrap or are otherwise packaged in some form of plastic or paper. Id. In flight, Continental (now United), in March 2012 and today, made available to its customers pillows and blankets that are individually packaged in shrink-wrap plastic. Id. In addition, amenity kits that are individually shrink-wrapped and that have contents also packaged in plastic are provided to select customers. Id. Complimentary food service items often are covered or packaged with plastic. Id. Many customers in March 2012 and today pack and carry on board personal items such as crayons for children, snacks and cosmetics that are wrapped in plastic for use on the flight. Id.
The parties' submissions highlight a seemingly disputed factual issue: to what extent, in terms of volume, timing and from whose perspective, it was unexpected or unusual on Continental or United flights and in the airline industry in March 2012 for there to be trash or debris, including paper or plastic items, on the cabin floor and aisles during a transatlantic flight. Defendant has submitted declarations from career flight attendants and from United's director of inflight safety services and relies on the depositions on several other career flight attendants to the effect that it is common throughout a flight—including on the specific Houston to London route flown by United 34—for paper or plastic (as well as other) trash to be dropped on the aircraft floor by passengers, that such trash routinely migrates to (or is placed in) the aisles, and that flight attendants are not required to and do not routinely or always remove that trash within a specified or an immediate timeframe. See ECF Nos. Beuker Decl. ¶¶ 13–14, 16, [67] (Washington Decl.) ¶¶ 10–12, [70] (Sheffield Decl.) ¶¶ 9–12, [76] (Second Sheffield Decl.)¶ 6 (), [77] (Second Washington Decl.) ¶ 6 (same), [78] (Third Washington Decl.) ¶ 6 (same); see also ECF No. [82–7] (Sheffield Affidavit) 49:13–15:2; ECF No. [82–10] (Pettingill Dep. Tr.) 16:10–27:23; ECF No. [82–5] (Judy Dep. Tr.) 19:10–20:11, 21:8–32:20; ECF No. [82–9] (McGee–Ebert Dep. Tr. 65:2–69:25). Plaintiffs rely on their own career flight attendant and an expert witness to state that flight attendants are required and expected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Underwriters at Interest v. All Logistics Grp., Inc.
-
Garrett v. Emirates Which Will Do Bus. in California
...luggage to be in the aircraft's aisle because it was "customary" for luggage to be in various areas of the cabin); Vanderwall v. United Airlines, 80 F. Supp. 3d 1324, 1334 (holding it was not unusual or unexpected for a discarded blanket bag to be in the aisle). In Cuartas v. American Airli......