Commercial airline passengers who suffer injuries during flight have clear legal paths to compensation, though the applicable law depends significantly on whether the flight was domestic or international. From turbulence injuries and slip-and-falls to burns from hot beverages and crush injuries from overhead bins, airlines bear responsibility for maintaining safe cabin environments and responding appropriately when passengers are harmed.
The legal framework governing airline passenger claims has evolved to provide strong protections for travelers. Airlines cannot simply disclaim liability for passenger injuries—legal principles ensure that carriers who profit from transporting passengers bear responsibility for injuries occurring during that transport.
Domestic Flight Claims
Passengers injured on domestic flights—those that remain entirely within the United States—pursue claims under state tort law as modified by federal preemption. The Airline Deregulation Act preempts state regulation of airline rates, routes, and services, but the Supreme Court has confirmed that state personal injury claims remain viable.
Airlines operating domestic flights are common carriers under the law, which means they owe passengers the highest degree of care. This elevated standard makes it easier for injured passengers to prove airline negligence. Common carriers must exercise utmost care for passenger safety, going beyond what ordinary businesses owe customers.
Common injury scenarios on domestic flights include turbulence injuries when passengers were not properly warned to fasten seatbelts, beverage burns when flight attendants served hot liquids carelessly, slip-and-falls in aircraft lavatories or aisles, injuries from falling luggage when overhead bins are loaded improperly, and crush injuries during boarding and deplaning.
Damages in domestic cases follow state law where the airline is incorporated, where the ticket was purchased, or where the accident occurred. Venue selection can significantly impact recovery when different states offer different damage rules. Consulting an attorney before accepting settlements ensures you understand the full value of your claim under applicable law.
International Flight Claims Under the Montreal Convention
The Montreal Convention governs liability for international flights between signatory countries. This treaty provides a more passenger-friendly framework than domestic law by establishing strict liability for the first tier of damages and presuming airline liability above that threshold.
For injuries under approximately 170,000 USD (denominated as 128,821 Special Drawing Rights), the airline is strictly liable without any requirement to prove fault. Passengers need only show that an accident occurred during international air carriage and caused their injuries. The airline cannot defend by arguing it was not negligent.
Above this threshold, airlines can avoid liability only by proving they were not negligent or that the injury was caused solely by a third party's negligence. This burden falls on the airline, effectively creating a presumption of liability. Airlines rarely escape liability for serious injuries under this framework.
The Montreal Convention defines accident as an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger. Courts have interpreted this requirement to mean that routine flight operations—ordinary turbulence, normal takeoffs and landings—are not accidents unless something unusual occurs. However, most injuries involve some unusual element that satisfies this requirement.
What Constitutes Airline Negligence
Airlines must maintain aircraft in safe condition, train crew members properly, and operate flights safely. Negligence can occur in any of these areas. A worn carpet that causes a passenger to trip, inadequate training that leaves flight attendants unprepared for emergencies, or operational decisions that expose passengers to unnecessary risks all constitute potential negligence.
Cabin safety obligations require airlines to ensure passengers can move about the cabin safely when the seatbelt sign is off, that overhead bin doors secure properly, that lavatories are kept clean and dry, and that galley operations do not create burn hazards. Flight attendants must remain alert for hazards and warn passengers appropriately.
The seatbelt sign protocol demonstrates airline safety obligations. Airlines must illuminate the sign when turbulence is foreseeable and must communicate warnings effectively to passengers. Failure to provide timely warnings before turbulence injuries can establish negligence.
Response to passenger emergencies affects liability. When passengers suffer medical events, airlines must provide reasonable assistance including medical kits, trained crew response, and diversion when necessary. Failure to respond appropriately to medical emergencies can create liability for worsening of the passenger's condition.
Filing Your Claim
Initial steps after any airline injury should include documenting the incident thoroughly. Photograph any visible injuries, obtain names and contact information of witnesses, and preserve your boarding pass and ticket. Report the injury to flight crew and complete any incident reports the airline offers, keeping copies of everything.
Seek medical attention promptly after the flight, even if injuries seem minor. Some injuries—particularly head trauma and spinal injuries from turbulence—may not manifest full symptoms immediately. Medical records documenting your condition shortly after the incident strengthen the causal connection between the flight and your injuries.
Notice requirements may apply depending on the flight and your ticket. Some airline conditions of carriage require notice of injury claims within specific timeframes. While these provisions may not be enforceable for negligence claims, providing prompt notice protects your position and preserves your options.
The Montreal Convention imposes a two-year statute of limitations for international flight claims, running from the date of arrival or the date the aircraft should have arrived. Domestic claims follow state statutes of limitations, typically one to three years depending on jurisdiction.
Common Airline Defenses
Airlines routinely argue that passengers caused or contributed to their own injuries through comparative negligence. Failing to heed seatbelt sign warnings, walking in aisles during announced turbulence, or engaging in horseplay may reduce or eliminate recovery depending on jurisdiction and the degree of passenger fault.
The unavoidable accident defense argues that some injuries occur despite all reasonable precautions. Clear air turbulence that struck without warning, sudden medical emergencies among other passengers, or unforeseeable equipment failures may support this defense in limited circumstances.
Airlines may argue that your injuries pre-existed the flight or that the incident merely aggravated prior conditions. Medical records and expert testimony become crucial in establishing that the airline incident caused new injuries rather than simply exacerbating problems you already had. Even aggravation claims can support recovery, but they require different evidence.
Maximizing Your Recovery
Insurance considerations often complicate airline injury claims. Your own health insurance may cover treatment, creating subrogation interests. Travel insurance may provide additional benefits. Understanding how different coverages interact helps maximize your total recovery.
Settlement offers from airlines rarely reflect the full value of serious injuries. Airlines have claims departments and attorneys protecting their interests; you deserve experienced representation protecting yours. Initial offers should be evaluated carefully before acceptance, as settlements typically release all future claims.
If you suffered significant injury on a commercial flight, consulting an aviation attorney helps you understand your rights under applicable law and the potential value of your claim. These cases involve specialized knowledge about airline operations, applicable legal frameworks, and damage calculations that general practitioners may lack.