January 17, 1997

STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF FALLEN AIRLINE TRAVELERS

BY ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

Thanks to recent snowstorms, hordes of frustrated travelers learned firsthand that airports sorely lack the amenities and comforts of home. But when Mother Nature hits with such force, airline companies can't possibly meet all the needs of grounded customers whose flights are delayed or cancelled.

That doesn't mean, of course, that airlines aren't responsible for the care and safety of their passengers. On the contrary, Washington courts have long held that passengers are owed the highest degree of care by common carriers like airlines. There are limits to this duty, however, as shown by Shelley v. United Air Lines. In that case, it was a senior citizen who received a painful lesson about the extent of an airline's legal obligations.

The Shelley case involves a mishap that occurred at the Seattle-Tacoma airport. The day of the incident, Truman and Rachel Shelley, an elderly couple from Wisconsin, had just flown from Chicago to visit their daughter. Before leaving home, the Shelleys made arrangements with their airline, United Air Lines, to have wheelchairs waiting for them when they arrived. Although Rachel was able to walk, she too requested a wheelchair because she was unsure how far she could trek through a large airport.

Once their plane landed, the Shelleys walked off unassisted. After they were greeted at the gate by their family, the couple was told that the wheelchair delivered by a United skycap was the only one available. Presumably because she didn't want her family to wait solely on her account, Rachel decided to walk. When her daughter specifically asked if she was sure she could make it without a wheelchair, Rachel said she'd be fine.

The group then left the gate and took an elevator down to the shuttle train. After reaching the main terminal, the Shelleys took another elevator to the baggage claim level, where Rachel and her daughter got off. The others remained in the elevator until they reached the garage level.

After picking up the luggage, mother and daughter decided to use the escalator since the elevator had a waiting line. Unfortunately, part way up the escalator, Rachel fell and broke her arm.

Rachel later sued United Air Lines for damages in King County Superior Court. Her suit claimed that the airline breached its duty of care by not providing wheelchair assistance. Rachel also claimed she would have waited for the second elevator if she'd been using a wheelchair, thereby avoiding the escalator and the ensuing fall.

In early 1995, United moved to dismiss Rachel's claims. The airline argued, among other things, that it no longer owed Rachel a duty of care at the time of her fall. When the trial court agreed and threw her case out of court, Rachel appealed.

The appeals court acknowledged at the outset that passengers are entitled to the highest degree of care from airlines and other common carriers. ('Common carrier' also refers to bus, train, ferry and even elevator operators.) A stickier question, the court said, is when this duty terminates. On that point, the court noted that a common carrier's responsibility usually ends when its passengers disembark. But leaving the door open just a crack, the court also said this duty is continuing where the carrier knows a passenger has an incapacity that poses a particular risk of harm.

Rachel tried to fit within this exception by arguing that United knew about her infirmity because she and her husband had requested two wheelchairs and been assisted by its employees at other airports. United countered that its duty to Rachel ended when she said she could make it through the airport without a wheelchair.

By a 3-0 margin, the appeals court ultimately sided with the airline. United could have been liable, the court indicated, if Rachel had fallen while boarding or alighting from her plane. But once she left it and reached a safe point inside the terminal, the "operation of disembarking" was over. The court therefore ruled that since Rachel wasn't a current passenger when she fell, United no longer owed her any duty. This was especially true, the court said, because Rachel decided at the gate to walk on her own with her family instead of renewing her request for help.

The lesson to be learned is that handicapped or infirm travelers who ask for assistance should stick to their guns and insist on being helped. Because if they're later injured in a fall, they probably won't have a case that'll stand up in court.

Previous columns:

• DO-IT-YOURSELFER TREATS KNEE PAIN THE HARD WAY, 01-10-1997
• CAN ONE BE LIABLE FOR NOT STOPPING A SUICIDAL ACT?, 12-19-1996
• WHEN THE HARSHEST PENALTY DOESN'T SEEM SEVERE ENOUGH, 11-21-1996
• A BOY'S WRONGFUL DEATH, A DAD'S RIGHTFUL SETTLEMENT?, 11-07-1996
• THE $2.6 MILLION QUESTION, 08-30-1996
• THE CASE AGAINST SELLING BEER TO MINORS, 08-01-1996
• DUE CARE IS REQUIRED WHEN B.A.S.S. FISHIN', 09-28-1995
• THIEVES: WATCH FOR BARGAINS, 08-10-1995