This is absolutely ridiculous, I have flown on many flights they tell you do not get up when the seat belt sign is on and if you do you are doing so at your own risk. Continental should not be held responsible.

by jumpingchula on Saturday, April 25, 2009

The ABC News story mentions that the woman speaks Spanish. Does she speak English? If not, did the flight have Spanish-language pre-flight announcements? If the woman doesn't speak English and there were no Spanish-language pre-flight announcements, Continental might have a harder time defending itself.

Then again, the woman's case could be made harder to prosecute if she's done any significant air travel before.

by Archon on Saturday, April 25, 2009

@Archon You're kidding, right? This was a domestic U.S. flight, and not only that, the woman lives in the U.S. (in McAllen).

If I moved to Germany and didn't speak German, and I boarded a Lufthansa flight from Munich to Stuttgart, or if I moved to Moscow and decided to fly Aeroflot to St. Petersburg, I would not expect any announcements in English. I certainly wouldn't hold the airline responsible for my failure to learn the local languages.

On top of that, the seat belt sign is pretty universal. It's been featured in enough movies and TV commercials that anyone should know what it looks like and what it means. Heck, the "DING" so prominently featured in Southwest's commercials and computer application is probably one of the better-known sound effects, even among people who don't fly often.

by jackal on Sunday, April 26, 2009

I just want to add that this is a tragic situation, and I feel sad for the person who was paralyzed and wish it would not have happened, but this was in no way CO's fault and it is silly to blame them.

And I didn't mean to target Archon as strongly as I did--he/she was simply bringing up some points to discuss and didn't appear to actually be advocating any particular side of the issue. Sorry if I came off too strongly! :)

Still, I will be greatly irritated if CO loses the case.

by jackal on Sunday, April 26, 2009

The fasten seatbelt sign is a symbol... anyone can understand it even if they speak spanish. Let's face it, ppl ignore that sign all the time. I do not want to have may fares go up because the airline has to pay people for being stupid. If someone gets hurt in a car crash bec. they weren't wearing seatbelts, does that mean Ford Motor Co. can be sued?

by ricky on Sunday, April 26, 2009

After he goes after the sleazy credit card companies and overpaid automobile CEOs, maybe the next thing Obama can confront are the lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits like this have got to go.

by airfare on Sunday, April 26, 2009

On Continental, the Fasten Seat Belt info is posted in Spanish and English, so that's not the issue. it's just that people take the rules into their own hands. of course, who knows, maybe the poor woman had to throw up because of the turbulence. we don't know all the facts here. better to throw up at your seat though, as it turns out. next time they put the fasten seat belt sign on i will stay in my seat no matter what.

by FurryFlyer on Monday, April 27, 2009

People routinely ignore the "fasten seat belt" sign - as if it's for eveyrone else, not them. I'm sorry this woman was so badly hurt but there are consequences to your actions. More than once I've had to tell someone trying to take something out of the overhead bin over my head while the seatbelt sign is illuminated that they needed to sit down.

by locommish on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Does anyone know if this story is either real or accurate? Re the comment by "airfare", and keeping in mind the annual list of phony lawsuits publicized by insurance companies as part of their campaign to eliminate jury trials, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that this never happened at all. If it did, I'd like to hear the plaintiff's theory of liability before condemning the suit. Isn't that supposed to be part of due process? If the suit is a joke, it will be thrown out of court before it goes much farther. The same attorneys dissed by "airfare" will, on behalf of CO, bring the necessary motion to have that done. If the suit has no merit, it should be tossed; if it does have a legitimate basis, the injured woman should be heard. Wouldn't we all want that under those circumstances?

by LR on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

I fly a lot and have never been on a domestic flight where safety instructions were given in more than one language. One of the reasons for the SEATBELT SIGN is to communicate the message to those who might be deaf or don't speak English. The sign was lit. How can an airline possibly know how many non-English speakers are on a given flight and which language they would understand???
Absolutely this is a tragedy, but people have to take personal responsibility for their own actions. It's not the airline's fault if someone is injured after ignoring a safety notification.

by Jude on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Because of lawsuits regarding injuries from turbulence, the pilots are instructed to turn on the seatbelt sign at the slightest sign of turbulence. To me, this is ridiculous--except in severe turbulence, I can safely make my way to the lavatory and back with no problem. But then, I am young and athletic, and used to boats and planes.

However, if I do choose to ignore the seatbelt sign and get up to go to the lavatory, then I am clearly doing so at my own risk and it's MY fault if I get injured in the process. I will continue to get up and go to the lav when I need to, seatbelt sign or not, but I will not hold and airline responsible for any injuries that I may sustain the process.

by Metri on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Not to play Devil's Advocate but... was the fasten seatbelt sign on when she got up to go to the lavatory or did it turn on while she was in there?

There have been several times where I get in the lavatory sign off) and I swear the pilot knows and heads for the turbulence (j/k).

If she blantently ignored the sign and got up anyways, that's her stupid fault and did not listen to the directions of crew members (also part of the contract of carriage). If the plane hit turbulence and the sign was illuminated while she was in there... well that one is hard to argue either way.

by Think Harder on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

So what does the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign amount to? Has nobody ever noticed that during most of the time that the sign is illuminated you will see cabin attendants and occasionally even the cockpit crew walking around the aircraft? So, taken as a whole, the message given by the flight crew is not exactly, "DANGER ! STAY IN YOUR SEAT !" On the contrary, the sign, coupled with the normal announcements and crew behavior, really make it more advisory in nature, more like "it's be a good idea to stay in your seat and buckle up" rather than "buckle up or risk lifelong paralysis."

This case will NOT turn on the seatbelt sign; it WILL turn primarily on whether the behavior of the crew on the flight deck was reasonable under the circumstances. If the extreme turbulence could not have been anticipated and could not have reasonably been avoided, Continental should prevail. On the other hand, if they knew about it, could reasonably anticipate the dangers, had opportunity to avoid it and decided not to ... say perhaps because they didn't want to waste fuel by altering course ... then I think you have a different outcome.

The short story is that if Continental was negligent, they're going to pay and that's that ... and if they weren't, they won't.

Nobody's ever seen those parking lot signs that say, "Not responsible for lost or stolen articles" ?? It's a nice try on the part of the owners but here too -- as always -- you cannot escape the consequences of negligence merely by posting a sign that you won't be held negligent.

As for your airfares ... airlines anticipate contingent liabilities of this sort and take appropriate risk mitigation steps ... in other words, it's already baked into the fare. Besides, anyone who flies commercially benefits indirectly when airlines have to consider and review their operational procedures.

I hope none of you are ever seriously injured on a flight because you failed to put your seat back or tray table in its full upright position in a fully timely manner ... or ever have to argue over the meaning of what constitutes a "securely fastened" seat belt.

by Liz on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

@ LR - why should all of us have to bear the burden of the expense of the legal fees which will trickle down and the resources of our legal system for this? You better believe that we have to pay for it in the end. As for the insurance company comment, it sounds like you are a plaintiff attorney. I have read the case law on the "phony lawsuits" of which you speak. They ultimately have cost all of us in every aspect of our lives. Personal responsibility was lost in the 60's and it is very sad how companies have to run their businesses to cover their behinds at all times - from even the costs of frivolous lawsuits.

by Pishy on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

@ Pishy

Personal responsibility means when you hurt someone, you pay for it. If the CO flight crew was negligent the company will pay; if they were not, they won't .... LR made that pretty clear and so did I.

If you're really concerned about increasing fares flowing from negligence verdicts I hope you are staying fully up to date on airline safety and only patronizing carriers with outstanding safety records.

Maybe you'd care to share the citations for the "case law on phony lawsuits" you've read. I suspect what you've really been reading is insurance company propaganda about lawsuits. It abounds and it is nearly always misleading or flat wrong.

Instead of blaming higher costs on people maimed and killed by flagrant negligence, why not focus on the companies that refuse to make reasonable efforts to make their products and services safe? If you really have read any negligence case law then you know that it's not really a high standard to meet.

by Liz on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

If the turbulence is bad enough, the flight crew will tell the flight attendants to sit down. I've been on many flights where that was indeed the case. The flight attendants would rather sit down in turbulence too, I'm sure, since so many injuries happen to them during this time, but they have to give the masses their sodas or there will be an onboard riot.
Every single time I fly and see someone get up when the seat belt sign on, it is frustrating to me. They do it because they see others get up. No matter how badly I need to get up, I don't. I set a good example. And it's never been that much of an emergency anyway. I generally use the facilities before the flight or if I know I won't be able to make it the whole flight I use the facilities while the seat belt sign is off. Granted, if she was in there before the sign turned on, that's a different story.
They turn that sign on for a reason. Whether other planes have reported turbulence or they are flying into a storm, they probably know it's coming. In some cases they've probably flown into an unexpected patch and don't know how bad it will get so they turn it on to be safe.
Continental is not responsible.
People, whatever happened to PERSONAL responsibility? Are we not liable for our OWN choices anymore?

by Mics Pics on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Don't hold your breath on President Obama putting a stop to lawsuits like this. When Congress voted on a "Good Samaritan" Amendment to a bill to grant people who report suspicious activity immunity from being sued, then Senator Obama voted "Present". This amendment was in response to the "Flying Imams" case where the Imams in question not only tried to sue the airlines, but the passengers on the flight they were on as well.

by Charlie on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

When are they going to put seatbelts in the lav?

by db538 on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The problem often is that airlines leave the fasten seat belt sign on continuously. I have been on totally smooth flights where the sign is NEVER TURNED OFF. I think the crew just forgets about it, frankly. If they were more deliberate about when the sign can be off, people would probably pay more attention when it is on. Kind of like "boy who cried wolf". Too many false alarms is confusing.

by musicmommy on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

I have been on many flights where the seatbelt light in never turned off during the entire flight and there is no turbulence that we as passengers can feel. On one flight, the person seated next to me repeatedly and politely asked the flight attendant when the light would be turned off so she could use the restroom. The FA didn't know. Finally, the woman got up and used the restroom. the Fa's comment was "you gotta do what you gotta do."

by judge43 on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Let me sound a contrarian note or two:
Suppose you are on a plane and go to the toilet despite the fasten seat belt sign. And suppose further that you are one of the unlucky few who suffers an injury as a result. Would you sue the airline. Perhaps not; after all your health insurance will pay whether it's your fault or not. But if the injury is very expensive, your insurance company may force you to sue. Suppose you have no insurance and the injury was very serious; then would you sue? The answer is more likely to be yes. If we had universal health care, the incentive to sue would be much lower.
If you ran an airline, you would anticipate injuries that were not your fault by setting aside a contingency fund and by hiring lawyers who are smart, smarter certainly than the P.R. people who work for airlines. And if you were a smart lawyer who worked for an airline you might decide that it would be cheaper to settle a lawsuit than to generate bad publicity by going to trial and possibly losing. If you've ever served on a jury you know that cold logic and the doctrine of personal responsibility don't always carry the day.
If the airline wins, what makes us think that it will result in their holding the line on fares? If the airline loses, will they raise fares? Airlines raise fares whenever they can and lower fares whenever they must. They all raised fares because of soaring fuel prices, but they didn't lower them when those prices went back down. They cut employee pay when they went into bankruptcy; will they raise pay when they return to profitability?
As for the paralyzed woman, perhaps it was mostly her fault, but if her injury is real then her suit is not frivilous because that's the way the American legal system works. Personally, I hope that Continental settles out of court. Then we can stop being angry at her and focus on the issues that matter: Why airlines have made the skies such an unfriendly place.
Cheers.

by Retired Editor on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

I always try to use the restroom before a flight but there have been times where I absolutely could not wait any longer. One time I tryed to wait until the plane landed and then I had to push my way pass passengers to get to the restroom as they were deplaning, I was in tears. I usually wait when the 'fasten seat belt' sign is on but sometimes it is on too long and everyone rushes to the restroom and I find myself unrelieved and the 'fasten seat belt' sign is turned on again.

Even given all of that, I would never think of suing the airline for my very own negligence. But, if they were at fault for leaving the 'fasten seat belt' sign on for most of the flight without cause and that made me have to wait to the point that I could not wait any longer, then I would have a second thought.
As for the unfortunate woman I can not say what is right in here case but I hope the outcome will be a fair one either way it goes.

by I can't wait on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Look, this is the main problem with our entire country: Nobody wants to take any responsibility any more. Johnny jumps over the fence & past the "Do Not Hike Beyond Here" sign & falls to his death....sue the city/state/feds. Sally decides it's a good idea to eat seven double cheeseburgers per day.....sue McDonald's because she becomes 450 pounds. Bob smokes 3 packs a day and ignores the warnings EVERYWHERE that smoking will kill you....sue the tobacco companies when he gets lung cancer. Bill uses a gun to kill his wife....sue the gun manufacturers because they should have known what he would do one day. Little 12-year-old Susie wants to "go out on dates" with guys 5 years older than she & her parents let her....sue the school district for failing to teach her sex education properly when she turns up pregnant.

In short, America needs to get a life and get back to basics. The only person's fault is the one in the mirror. Period.

by sick of the whiners on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Seat Belt Sign: when the light is on, people should stay put, I think it is the responability of the flight crew to get on the speaker system and announce please return to your seat and stay put until the sign goes off. I fly all the time, and i sure wish i was a air marshall for seat belt offenders, i would write at least 50 tickets each flight. Have the flight crew be more responsible for the aircraft. No airline is at fault here, the crew and staff should be more aware of the problem and enforce the rule in place instead of just over looking the situation as they do now. Buckle in people.

by garycruises on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The family is going to sue, I think that was a given. But is the airline at fault? I don't think so.

Regardless of the court outcome, hope this woman can walk again someday. That is the most important thing.

by nodebtworldtravel.com on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

garycruises,
How would you feel if you had to relieve yourself and there was absolutely no way to hold it any longer? If you did not go soon then there would be a mess that no one around you would want to see or smell. Would you feel differently then?

by I can't wait on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Thwe fasten seat belt sign is multilingual, just as musical notation. NO EXCUSE if she only understands Spanish. There are too many scofflaws today. This is just one of them. How many people stop and I mean stop at the stop signs today? Maybe the cabin crew should have or use the authority to arrest these people during the flight.

by ipxcat on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

For all you armchair lawyers out there, I will bet you the cost of a lifetime subscription to this Web site (!) that Continental wins. Even if CO was negligent - and that's likely going to be an impossible hill to climb if the plane was landing and hence under orders from air traffic control - the passenger is guilty of contributory negligence in failing to heed a safety warning. The fact that so many people take the seat belt sign speaks to their foolishness and no more.

Like Metri, for instance - you've got some kind of colossal nerve, reserving to yourself the right to decide to get out of your seat when the seat belt sign is on just because you're so 'athletic,' the safety of your fellow passengers be damned. When the plane hits a puff of turbulence and you break my leg because you fell on it because your sorry, selfish butt wasn't in his seat, you can bet you'll be hearing from my lawyers.

by GaNavy on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The fact that so many people take the seat belt sign *as only advisory* speaks to their foolishness and no more.

Just to correct the record.....

by GaNavy on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

@ GaNavy

the fact that so many seat belt signs stay illuminated for the duration of very long flights which encounter NO turbulence tells you why people treat them as advisory

Per your prior post, this is not a criminal trial so the passenger will never be GUILTY of contributory negligence ... if this case is tried -- and tried under Texas law -- the doctrine of comparative negligence applies, which means that if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% responsible for the injury suffered then s/he will take nothing from the action .... if the plaintiff is less than 51% responsible her damages will be reduced by such percentage ... i.e.: $100,000 damages, P 30% responsible, judgment for $70,000.

These are questions for the trier of fact; I don't know why you assume that plaintiff cannot win when the most salient facts of the case are entirely unknown at this point.

by Liz on Wednesday, April 29, 2009

I keep my seat belt on all the time. What's the difference? I never get up during turbulence, I also don't run in front of fast moving trucks on the highway to cross the street. What happened to common sense? I am terrified that one of these doofuses walking around the plane during turbuloence will fall on me!!!

by saavynewyorker on Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Would anyone like to just wait & see what the actual evidence shows before making snap judgments. People are making assumptions & then acting as if they are fact. Lawyers do not like to waste their time on losing lawsuits so I suspect that there is more here than meets the eye. It's knee jerk reactions like some shown here that cloud the real issues.

by Thoughtful on Wednesday, April 29, 2009

someone mentioned that they fly "a lot" and never hear the instructions in more than one language... I can't speak about Continental, but USAirways plays their video in English AND Spanish on all flights (incl. domestic), and I'm pretty sure American does the same.

I've also wondered why more flight attendants don't stop people from moving around when the sign is on...

AND, to the fellow who's asking about when you absolutely "can't hold it in any longer" ... are you 4? (perhaps 104?) c'mon... AND, if you're so frail that you can't control your bladder, you probably shouldn't be walking around on a plane when the seat-belt sign is on, lol.

by jjb on Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Even when the seatbelt sign is not illuminated, passengers are advised to keep their seatbelts fastened while in their seats. Airlines are not responsible for turbulence/weather encountered during a flight. Anytime you get out of your seat you are placing yourself at risk. You do so especially when you are aware of turbulence. It's a personal choice to get out of your seat.

by striker on Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Toilets have no place on airplanes. They should be eliminated. That simple step would eliminate the fatties and those with weak bladders.

by Howdydoody on Wednesday, April 29, 2009

This is ridiculous! People sue for everything!! I mean I know the economy is bad, but that doesn't mean you should "steal" from companies. The airline should NOT be held responsible for this woman's injuries. People always disobey the airlines instructions, everytime I fly! How can they be held liable because this lady went to the bathroom when she shouldn't have? Even if the sign wasn't on when she went in there, they cannot help that. It's not Continental's fault that idiots fly and don't pay attention and I don't think its right if she wins. Take responsibility for your actions sue-happy america!!

by michaelk on Wednesday, April 29, 2009

I'm sure this will not please the large Darwinian "personal responsibility" crowd that seems to have gathered around this topic but you might want to consider this summary of Spielberg v. American Airlines:

"American Airlines admitted liability, noting that its ground personnel and the flight crew did not take proper steps to detect and possibly avoid the storm, but it claimed the severe turbulence had lasted only 5 to 8 seconds, not nearly 30 seconds, as the plaintiffs claimed. Defense counsel suggested that the passengers were exaggerating their emotional injuries, noting they were able to "continue to live their [lives] and [were] not so incapacitated after what happened on Flight 58.

The plaintiffs told a different story. One testified that the plane bucked and lurched several times and then made a dive, as if it had lost power and was free-falling out of the sky. Another said that passengers and even a flight attendant were in tears. Kreindler told the jury that children who were on board have since become uneasy when cars they are riding in hit bumps and that they are frightened when they see airplanes. He said that although the passengers have gone on with their lives, they are emotionally scarred."

The jury awarded the 13 plaintiffs significant damages.

There's absolutely nothing new in the law of torts in this case; the principles have been around for centuries ... if you don't meet the duty of care owed to another, you may be held to account for it.

Again, I don't think anyone knows at this point whether CO did or not discharge its duty in the case under discussion ... but for those who think they simply get a free pass via a "personal responsibility" defense .... think again.

by Liz on Thursday, April 30, 2009

I personally don't leave my seat unless it is absolutely necessary--and never when the seat belt light is on. I do think, however, that many pilots leave it on more than needed; sometimes they just seem to forget to turn it off. This may lead to people ignoring it when it is important.
I've also seen people get up from their seat during landings, which makes me very uncomfortable. They are posing a risk to themselves and everyone else on the plane. As for the lawsuit, we are stuck with the system we have and many people/entities refuse to take accountability until forced by a court.

by flysometimes on Thursday, April 30, 2009

Remember the lawsuit against McDonalds and the woman who was burned with hot coffee! I never thought she would win in court, but she did! A million I heard. This lawsuit might also surprise us, Too!

by connie taylor on Thursday, April 30, 2009

@ connie taylor

Why wouldn't you think she would win? McDonald's was warned hundreds of times previously about the coffee temperature, had settled numerous lawsuits brought by people badly burned and disclosed in its own operations and training manuals that their coffee is to be served at over 180 degrees Fahrenheit.

The plaintiff in the case you refer to suffered third degree burns, was hospitalized for over a week, and had to undergo skin grafting procedures.

When you act like a bleeding idiot, refuse to heed reasonable warnings and hurt people badly you get sued ... and if the jury is awake, you lose.

by Liz on Friday, May 01, 2009

Idiot.

She also put others at risk by making her body a fast moving projectile.

If you were injured from her falling on you, I'm sure you'd find less compassion.

by Hank on Sunday, May 03, 2009

@Hank

This isn't about compassion; it's about the law.

As for "fast-moving projectiles," how about a refresher course in physics?

IF she did injure anyone, they would be well within their rights to conduct discovery and ascertain her liability, if any

by Liz on Sunday, May 03, 2009

For those of you advocating "just hold it", you may want to consider that not all flights are 2-3 hours long. I was recently on a 9 hour flight where the seatbelt light was on for several hours straight, midway through the flight, and with no discernible turbulence. And yes, I ignored the light after 2 hours and went to the bathroom.

by Glen on Monday, May 04, 2009

Spanish? English? Who cares! ITS A VISUAL SIGN! Has she never been on a flight before?

by pr0 on Friday, September 04, 2009

Oslo... on a business class ticket. The moral - always be sure your ticket starts or ends in the USA!!!Thanks for sharing it.
Nice article, very helpful. Thanks!
Nike shoes USA||Air yeezy USA

by Nike shoes ! on Monday, November 02, 2009