 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
The aircraft recently had to return to Amsterdam shortly after taking off as it experienced an unusual storm, namely a downpour on some unsuspecting passenger of a cluster of maggots. The woman presumably was about to enjoy the transatlantic flight when suddenly the creepy larvae dropped down on her from the overhead bin. She no doubt casually summoned the flight attendants, who inspected the bin and found a rotten fish, wrapped in newspaper, and infected with the maggots. The attendants removed the offending bag, and it was ultimately destroyed. I guess this event was a good enough reason for the captain to rewind and make a U-turn.
I sense a lawsuit coming. I can only imagine how the Statement of Claim will likely read in part,
“The defendant airline was negligent in that:
a) It knew or ought to have known that maggots were frequent flyers.
b) It failed to provide its passengers with safety equipment, such as umbrellas.”
c) It failed to warn its passengers of the risks of maggots being aboard a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
b) It failed to provide its passengers with safety equipment, such as umbrellas.”
c) It failed to warn its passengers of the risks of maggots being aboard a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
The airline will likely counter in its defence, categorically denying liability:
“a) The defendant pleads that the plaintiff’s claim is exaggerated, a classic fish story.
b) If indeed there were maggots aboard, which the defendant vehemently denies, then such maggots were part of the first aid kit, along with the leeches.
c) The plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk. She knew or ought to have known that maggots might be present on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.”
b) If indeed there were maggots aboard, which the defendant vehemently denies, then such maggots were part of the first aid kit, along with the leeches.
c) The plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk. She knew or ought to have known that maggots might be present on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.”
This case is somewhat reminiscent of the Supreme Court of Canada case of Mustapha and Culligan, where the plaintiff freaked out after seeing a dead fly floating around in his drinking water tank. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim, more or less saying folks of reasonable fortitude would not overreact like Mustapha did (Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114).
I suggest the maggots situation is far more severe. It would not surprise me if the plaintiff not only will have an aversion to fish and to flying but even a post-traumatic stress disorder resulting in a fear of the seat number she occupied. I don’t know what Freud would say but if it were me sitting in her seat, say 12A, I’d run for cover if anybody would ever mention the number 12. For that matter I would get into a cold sweat even if I’d hear the word “dozen.” At the supermarket egg area I would pick up the carton and remove one egg. My word!
Another question is, other than the airline, who else may be potentially joined in a claim? Schiphol Airport no doubt. Did security screw up? If you try to pass security with a small bottle of spring water, all hell breaks loose. What did the agent at the x-ray machine think that fish was? A service fish?
And the other obvious potential defendant is that passenger who may have wanted a fish lunch and just maybe did not trust airline food. The news item I read did not mention his or her name. I wonder if Delta will reveal it. Privacy reasons, of course. Usual. Please see our privacy policy. “We respect the privacy of all our passengers. We will not share any information with anybody about passengers who bring rotting fish aboard a flight.” Hey, they do care.
I wonder whether that mystery passenger will make a claim against the airline for his missing luggage. Why not?
I imagine the airlines will now modify their check-in protocols to prevent similar misadventures from reoccurring. There will likely be a section in the online check-in questionnaire reading something like, “I certify that I am not bringing onto the aircraft firearms, flammable or toxic substances or rotting fish.” But for now, in this matter, I would bet on the plaintiff’s claim. I would say the defendant’s case sleeps with the fishes.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is available on Amazon, (e-book) and paper version. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.