Olympic Airways v. Husain

2004-02-24

Headline: Airline held liable where crew refused to help an asthmatic passenger: Court rules that an airline’s unusual refusal to assist can be an "accident" under the Warsaw treaty, easing passenger claims.

Holding: The Court held that an airline's unexpected refusal to assist an ill passenger counts as an "accident" under the Warsaw Convention, so the carrier may be held liable for the passenger's death.

Real World Impact:

Allows passenger claims when airline's unusual refusal to assist worsens medical conditions.
Pushes airlines to train crews to respond to medical requests promptly.
Interprets treaty to include failures to assist as potential triggering events.

Topics: airline liability, medical emergencies on flights, in-flight smoking, international aviation treaty, passenger rights

Summary

Background

In 1997 a doctor with asthma and his wife flew on an international flight where smoking was allowed. After check-in they ended up three rows from the smoking section. The wife repeatedly asked a flight attendant to move her husband because he was allergic to smoke. The attendant twice told them to sit and later refused to reseat him, saying the plane was full and that they would have to ask other passengers themselves. The doctor was later exposed to heavy smoke, suffered a severe reaction, received emergency treatment on board, and died. The wife sued for wrongful death; lower courts found the airline liable and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court faced whether the airline’s refusal to help could be the "accident" that triggers liability under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. Relying on the Court’s earlier definition from Air France v. Saks, the majority said an "accident" can be any unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger and that any link in the chain of causes may qualify. The Court assumed the attendant’s conduct was unusual and held that her repeated refusals — even as inaction — could be an event in the chain and therefore an "accident," rejecting the airline’s argument that ordinary cabin smoke was the only relevant cause.

Real world impact

The decision makes it easier for passengers harmed by carriers’ unusual or unexpected conduct to seek damages under the Warsaw Convention. It signals that carrier refusals or failures to assist can count as triggering events, affecting airlines’ training and response to medical requests. The ruling leaves open other defenses and damages limits under the Convention.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued that inaction should not be treated as an "accident" and criticized the majority for not following foreign appellate decisions that reached the opposite view.