There are bizarre, odd, and mystifying lawsuits, and then there’s this… A passenger is suing the German flag carrier Lufthansa for damaging their $2,000 pet cat after a flight attendant allegedly screamed at them for attempting to take the cat out of its carrier during an international flight.
The passenger says they were so startled by the flight attendant’s behavior that they inadvertently squeeved the pet carrier, and, in doing so, injured their cat. The passenger now wants Lufthansa to pay damages for the incident.
Filed in a Northern California district court late last month, the lawsuit makes the fairly simple argument that the pet carrier is considered hand luggage and should be treated like any other personal item that passengers bring on board the plane with them.
That essentially means that passengers should have the right to open their hand luggage and access their belongings throughout the course of the flight.
The incident occurred on October 5 during a Lufthansa flight from Warsaw in Poland to Munich, although the passenger believes that a US court has jurisdiction over their claim as the flight was part of a connecting itinerary to San Francisco.
The complaint accepts that the flight attendant warned the passenger on three separate occasions not to open the pet container and to keep it under their seat, but the passenger wanted to calm their distressed pet.
After failing to heed the flight attendant’s repeated warnings, the lawsuit alleges the crew member grabbed the passenger by the shoulder and threatened to have the plane diverted if they didn’t comply.
It was at this point that the passenger ended up squeezing the bag and hurting their cat.
That, however, wasn’t the end of the matter. Once at Munich Airport, the passenger was initially refused boarding on their connecting flight to San Francisco after being put on Lufthansa’s passenger Black List.
After discussing the issue with gate agents, the passenger was eventually allowed on the connecting flight, although they said the whole incident left them feeling humiliated and discriminated against.
The passenger is making their claim against Lufthansa under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, which makes airlines liable for injuries sustained during the course of the flight.
In this case, the passenger says they were not only injured by the flight attendant grabbing their shoulder but also suffered emotional distress and injury as a result of nearly being blacklisted.
If this case does end up going to trial, then it would be up to Lufthansa to prove that the passenger suffered injury as a result of their own deliberate or negligent behavior. It could be argued that seemingly ignoring three verbal warnings from the crew member necessitated the flight attendant to physically intervene.
As to whether the passenger actually had the right to access the pet carrier during the flight is slightly less clear. From Lufthansa’s point of view, it’s a definite no, and the passenger would have signed a waiver which states that the animal is to be “kept in a soft-sided transport bag during the entire flight in the foot space in front of my seat.”
Lufthansa also warns passengers who want to transport pets in the cabin that their pet is comfortable flying and that if their behavior is a cause for concern that the airline may decide, at its own discretion, that the animal must be confined in the cargo at an additional charge to the passenger.
The ability to travel with a pet in the cabin might be taken for granted by passengers from certain countries, where it is considered perfectly normal and routine, but in Australia, pets in the cabin were banned until last month.
Following a change in local laws, Virgin Australia became the first and only carrier in the country to allow pets in the cabin, although, just like Lufthansa, the airline only allows smaller cats and dogs and requires them to be kept in their carriers at all times.
There are also a number of countries that still ban pets in the cabin, including the United Kingdom, which has an outright ban with the exception of service dogs, and Qatar, which also bans cats and dogs in the cabin but does allow falcons (a recognition of the bird’s national significance in Qatar and the wider region).
What a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit. The flight attendant was so strong that they injured the passenger by squeezing their shoulder? The passenger ignored repeated warnings but is somehow not to blame? The passenger feels humiliated that their actions had consequences? And filing in San Fransisco on a flight within Europe? I’m surprised the passenger managed to get a lawyer to take the case since they’re normally paid on a contingency basis where the lawyer only gets paid for a win or settlement.
Cats should be banned from passenger cabin as 10% of humans are allergic to them. Maybe this will make Lufthansa do this. Only service dogs belong in the passenger cabin.
In the phrase, “inadvertently squeeved the pet carrier,” did you mean ‘squeezed’?
Carsten Spohr’s Lufthansa routinely treats customers like trash, and will call the police on say…Jews who have the temerity to fly Lufthansa.
Benefit of the doubt to the woman, Lufthansa is a garbage airline with a cruel and disconnected CEO who generally runs the operation like a negligent driver running down a babysitter
I just want to defned the plaintiffs’ bar and make clear that this passenger filed his lawsuit pro se (with a little drafting help from ChatGPT). It’s too bad Chat is so bad at analyzing Montreal Convention claims, because grabbing a passenger’s shoulder isn’t going to make the cut for a physical injury under Article 17. He should’ve made a claim under Article 18 for damage to baggage. Or maybe just not made a claim at all. The case will be dismissed.