Posted: April 17th, 2020
In the United States a passenger who was travelling on Aer Lingus is alleging that she was injured and mistreated in an incident that occurred just prior to departure and has filed a legal action in relation to this.
In the lawsuit that was submitted Mary Oshana claims that Aer Lingus flight crew physically removed her, using force, from the cabin toilet and dragged her back to the assigned seat while her pants remained below her knees while her buttocks and genitalia were visible to the people on the flight. In addition to this she states that she sustained a hip injury.
A resident of Skokie IL, Ms Oshana, claims she was dealt with “unreasonably, carelessly, and negligently” by Aer Lingus flight crew. Due to this a complaint was filed in District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in connection with the events that took place just before a flight from Chicago to Dublin took off on April 26, 2018.
The claim says that, as it taxied from the departure gate at O’Hare International Airport, the flight came a halt and stood in place on the tarmac for around 30 minutes prior to moving to the runway for take-off. Ms Oshana, during this delay, went to use the toilet. She claims that, 20 seconds after entering the toilet, she became aware that one or more individuals were banging on the door.
These individuals advised here that she must return to her assigned seat. She told these people that she would do as they wished “in just a minute”
as she was seated on the toilet with her pants down.
The claims says that two Aer Lingus flight attendants “broke through the lavatory door, pulled her up by her arms, dragged her to her seat while her pants were underneath her knees, and flung her with considerable force into the armrest and seat. Due to this physical action, Ms Oshana says she sustained “pain and bruising in her hip, thighs and buttocks.”
Ms Oshana’s legal team allege that the incident falls under the terms of the Montreal Convention, a treaty agreed in relation to damages for victims of incidents on airlines. Aer Lingus have not released any statement in connection with the series of events that are listed in the claim submitted.
The personal injury hearing is pencilled in to be heard at a siting during June this year.
Posted: May 30th, 2019
A personal injury compensation claim against Ryanair in relation to an accident where an 8-year-old girl had hot chocolate spilled on her has been settled for €150,000.
The eight-year-old American girl, Sriya Venkata, suffered second-degree scald burns when a cup of hot chocolate fell on to her during a Ryanair flight.
The young girl, American Sriya Venkata Neti was on a flight from Rome to Krakow on a Ryanair flight with her parents when the hot hot chocolate in her paper cup fell on top of her as she was trying to drink the beverage.
Taking the legal action through her father Srinivas Neti, Sriya Venkata Neti sued Ryanair in relation to the accident that occurred on June 25, 2016.
The court was told that Sriya was burned on her thighs and buttocks and has been left with scarring. Srinivas Neti, submitted an affidavit to the court, which said that the scarring has now substantially receded. In the affidavit he also said that his daughter has made an excellent recovery and the condition of her injuries has greatly improved.
During the personal injury compensation hearing Sriya’s Counsel Hugh Mohan SC told the High Court the little girl suffered serious burns.
An official medical report was provided to the court which stated that the hot liquid gathered on the girl’s chair leading to extreme burning pain and the child’s mother had to unfasten the child from the seat and her clothing had to be removed. Her mother told the court that her daughter’s skin disappeared from the area where the liquid landed and blisters were forming in other places.
When they arrived in Krakow the girl was quickly airlifted to hospital and was then taken to Toronto, Canada where she spent another eight days being medically treated as an outpatient. Once her treatment was completed she was returned home to California.
In the claim it was alleged the the cabin crew did not act lead to the burns suffered being worsened. In particular, it was claimed that there was no attempt to provide any or any sufficient means of cooling the burns worsened the injuries in a major way. Ryanair denied all the allegations.
In approving the settlement Mr Justice Kevin Cross told the Court that it
must have been very sore when Sriya was scalded and also remarked that the young girl has been left with scarring regardless of the fact that she has made a good recovery.
Posted: February 5th, 2014
A couple of Caribbean holidaymakers have successfully resolved their claim for flight delay compensation from Virgin Atlantic after appealing to the Civil Aviation Authority.
Martin Offer and his partner were looking forward to their holiday in Saint Lucia in the Caribbean in October 2012; but unfortunately their vacation started badly when the failure of a fire detector on their Virgin Atlantic flight delayed their departure.
The technical issue resulted in Martin and his partner losing a day of their holiday in paradise while the faulty fire detector was being replaced and so, when the couple returned to the UK, Martin made a claim for flight delay compensation from Virgin Atlantic under EU regulation 261/2004.
Virgin Atlantic initially rejected Martin´s claim for flight delay compensation, saying that faulty fire detector was an “extraordinary circumstance” which excluded the company from having to pay compensation under the language of the EU legislation.
However, Martin found out that the faulty fire detector had been identified three days earlier and that Virgin Atlantic had failed to replace it because of the cost of having the replacement part fitted while the plane was in the United States.
Martin complained to the Civil Aviation Authority (the UK equivalent of the Commission for Aviation Regulation) and argued that an international airline such as Virgin Atlantic could be reasonably expected to have contingency plans and spare parts in place for technical issues.
Around the time Martin made his complaint to the Civil Aviation Authority, new guidelines were proposed to the existing EU 261/2004 regulations by the National Enforcement Bodies (of which the Civil Aviation Authority and the Commission for Aviation Regulation are members).
These guidelines specified what constituted an “exception circumstance” and what did not. Technical issues which arose from an airline´s failure to maintain its aircraft in accordance with the required maintenance program were included in the circumstances that did not qualify as exceptional circumstances.
As Virgin Atlantic had failed to replace the faulty fire detector for three days, the Civil Aviation Authority agreed with Martin´s argument, and ordered the airline to pay Martin and his partner €1,200 in resolution of their claim for flight delay compensation from Virgin Atlantic.