Could This Court Ruling On A Mid-Flight Death Make Airlines Less Liable For Passenger Medical Emergencies?
- When a 14-year-old boy went into sudden cardiac arrest aboard an American Airlines flight in June 2022, his family claimed the flight attendants hastened his death by failing to follow the airline's own emergency procedures. Now they are appealing a district court's verdict that American Airlines shouldn't be held liable.
The family of a 14-year-old boy who unexpectedly went into cardiac arrest during an American Airlines flight is appealing a district court’s verdict that the carrier shouldn’t be held liable for his death due to the actions of the flight attendants.
Kevin Greenidge was traveling on American Airlines flight AA614 from San Pedro Sula in Honduras to Miami on June 4, 2022, with his aunt and uncle, when he began struggling to breathe just as the plane took off after a multi-hour weather delay.
Kevin’s family passed him an asthma inhaler to ease his symptoms, but his breathing only worsened, and as the plane reached cruising altitude, he fell unconscious from an apparent heart attack.
As well as suffering from asthma, Kevin was also a Type II diabetic and was classed as obese. His uncle tried to lift Kevin from his window seat to get help, but struggled to move him, as other family members cried out for help.
Flight attendants responded to the family’s pleas and declared a ‘Code Red’, which should have started a well-rehearsed medical response.
This includes immediately informing the pilots of the medical emergency, starting CPR, and requesting advice from an on-call physician on the ground via the cockpit radio.
Kevin’s family claims, however, that the flight attendants failed to follow their own medical training and instead relied on volunteers to move Kevin from his seat and into the galley at the back of the aircraft, where an off-duty nurse and surgeon started to perform CPR.
“There is rarely, if ever, a perfect response to a medical emergency.”
US District Judge Mark Pittman
Only at this point were the pilots informed of what was going on, and a decision was made to divert the aircraft to Cancun, Mexico, so that Kevin could receive more advanced medical care.
The on-call physician that American Airlines uses, however, was never contacted.
The family claims that one of the flight attendants was “panicky” and “frazzled” during the emergency, which resulted in confusion and delays in providing Kevin with potentially life-saving medical care.
Flight attendants should take on set roles in a medical emergency – one communicates with the pilots (the communicator), the second provides emergency medical care (the responder), and a third fetches emergency medical equipment (the runner).
In this case, the family argues that the flight attendants failed to adhere to these roles, leading to a delay in providing medical care.
The case was brought under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that holds airlines liable for accidents resulting in injury or death during an international flight.
The family claimed that the actions of the flight attendants deviated from their medical protocols and constituted multiple ‘accidents’ that put American Airlines on the hook for a payout of up to $170,000.
A district court did not buy this argument, concluding that while the medical care provided by the flight attendants aboard flight 614 was probably less than perfect, this should be expected in a stressful situation such as this.
US District Judge Mark Pittman even stated in his judgment that there is “little doubt that the American Airlines crew could have done more to aid Kevin.”
But Judge Pittman added, “There is rarely, if ever, a perfect response to a medical emergency.”
Given Kevin’s underlying medical conditions, the judgment concluded there was nothing “unusual or unexpected” about the crew’s response.
“Any deficiency in following the protocol can, at least to some extent, be attributed to unique challenges presented in this situation,” the verdict continued.
The family is now appealing the district court’s decision, and an airline passenger rights group has submitted its own arguments to the appeal court with significant concerns about the original verdict.
FlyersRights fears the decision will effectively make two classes of people under the Montreal Convention – those who are able-bodied and those who are disabled. The non-profit group believes the district court was too focused on Kevin’s underlying medical conditions, rather than the response of the flight attendants.
Paul Hudson, President of FlyersRights, claims the judgment has effectively created “a discriminatory framework for deciding what level of emergency care an airline must provide a passenger based on that passenger’s medical conditions or disability.”
The appeal is underway in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appeal number: 25-10606.
Something doesn’t sit right with this. I can’t speak for American Airlines (Their new motto: “Working our way to the bottom…and it shows!) but most airlines will call the FLIGHT CREW/CAPTAIN first to get dispatch involved and get the remote “on call” medical team in the loop. Then they would ask for onboard assistance. Depending on the aircraft configuration, some jets have comm jacks throughout the aircraft allowing those treating the distressed passenger, direct access to the “on call” physician. Regardless of onboard advice, the captain still retains the final call to divert even if it is recommended to carry on. It is NEVER allowed to not divert if the onboard qualified medical personnel or remote “on call” say, “We need to get on the ground NOW!”