Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc.

Citation. United States of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1994. 24 F.3d 39.

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff, Billie Jean Andrews was hit with a briefcase that fell from the defendants, United Airlines, a common carrier’s overhead compartment. Ms. Andrews sued in district court arguing that her injury was foreseeable and the airline did not prevent it

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A common carrier owes a duty of utmost care and the vigilance of a very cautious person towards [its] passengers.

Facts.

Plaintiff, Billie Jean Andrews was hit with a briefcase that fell from the defendants, United Airlines, a common carrier’s overhead compartment. Ms. Andrews sued in district court arguing that her injury was foreseeable and the airline did not prevent it. At trial, Ms. Andrew’s brought two witnesses. The first witness, Janice Northcott worked for United Airlines safety stated that they had received 135 reports of items falling from overhead bins. The second witness, Dr. Thompson a safety and human factors expert, testified that the defendant’s(United)  were not giving helpful warnings about the overhead bins. Dr. Thompson argued further the defendant, United Airline’s could also place a net in front of the overhead bin or ensure that only light luggage goes up there. Ms. Andrews lost the trial on a summary judgment and the Ninth Circuit is hearing the case de novo.

Issue.

Whether the plaintiff(Ms. Andrews) is owed a higher duty of care on a common carrier?

Held.

Yes, people are owed a higher duty of care when they ride a common carrier.

Discussion.

The defendant, United Airlines, is a common carrier that “owes a duty of utmost care and the vigilance of a very cautious person towards [its] passengers.” Citing Acosta v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. Such a duty was owned to Billie Jean Andrews, who, in this case, was hit by a briefcase that fell from a United Airlines overhead compartment. A jury could find that the defendant(United) failed to do all that human care, vigilance and foresight reasonably can do under all the circumstances. The court found that the defendant never explored the financial feasibility of Dr. Thompson’s suggestion of baggage nets. The court determines that the plaintiff(Ms. Andrews) has made a sufficient case to overcome summary judgment.