A professional singer, actress, and wellness educator is suing Singapore Airlines after she nearly swallowed a 1.5-inch splinter from a wooden skewer used to eat the carrier’s iconic Business Class chicken satay.
Briohny Smyth from Los Angeles says she has been left with scarring to her vocal cords from the July 28, 2024, incident during a flight from Singapore to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and is now suing the carrier for up to $176,000.
According to a new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Central California, Briohny says she was injured shortly after flight attendants served her a dish of chicken satay aboard Singapore Airlines flight SQ-36.
Unbeknownst to Briohny, however, the wooden skewer that the chicken was on had a large splinter running through it. As she tried to eat the chicken satay, she inadvertently swallowed the 1.5-inch splinter.
The splinter became lodged in Briohny’s throat as she coughed and choked. Briohny was eventually able to expel the splinter, but she claims it left her with scarring to her vocal cords, and the incident has resulted in persistent throat discomfort, raspiness, and pain with prolonged singing or talking.
Given that Briohny is a yoga teacher, wellness educator, singer, and performer, she says the incident has resulted in professional harm, loss of earnings, as well as continued physical pain, and anxiety of eating while flying.
The lawsuit against Singapore Airlines has been filed under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, a treaty that makes airlines liable for injuries sustained by passengers during the course of an international flight.
Airlines are unable to limit liability for claims under Article 17 up to 128,821 Special Drawing Rights – a monetary instrument developed by the IMF to represent a basket of currencies. At present, 128,821 SDR is equivalent to around $176,000.
Passengers can, however, claim more than this limit, although airlines can avoid a higher payout if they can prove that the injury wasn’t due to the “negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agent,” or that the injury was “solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party.”
Briohny’s complaint does not state whether she intends to claim above the 128,821 SDR limit.
The chicken satay course has become an iconic part of Singapore Airlines’ Business Class service, with flight attendants wheeling display carts along the aisle to serve up chicken skewers and satay sauce before the main meal service begins.
Singapore Airlines has yet to respond to the lawsuit.
In many cases, airlines go out of their way to settle Article 17 claims out of court for fear that any ruling in favor of a passenger might set a precedent that could lead to a flood of similar claims.
Many claims under Article 17 are due to hot tea and coffee burns, although we have also seen a slew of lawsuits brought by passengers who claimed to have been seriously injured by flight attendants pushing beverage carts into their feet and legs.
Other common claims under Article 17 are items of luggage falling on passengers’ heads from the overhead bins, as well as passengers who claim to have suffered back injuries from hard landings.
Wow. Just wow. When I read your headline my first thought was to wonder how anyone could miss a skewer piece that big. Then I wondered what happened to personal responsibility. Next was that anyone that voracious or plain stupid and that litigious must be American. Lastly I chuckled at the thought that if this was filed in Singapore the case would be laughed out of court in a minute.
Thanks for bringing an interesting case to light.