A Texas woman is paralyzed after getting up to use the lavatory, ignoring the fasten seat belt sign, as her Continental Airlines flight approached McAllen Airport in turbulent weather. Naturally, her family is suing Continental. Yes, when you gotta go, you gotta go, but is Continental really to blame? From ABCNews.com. (True, this has nothing to do with airfares, except it does... if people win law suits like this, airfares go up. You and I end up paying. In any case, this woman's family is paying a lot more than the airfare for this flight.)

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
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.
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.
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.
"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.