Summary:
Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen with diabetes, was traveling on the defendant airline's flight from Honolulu to Mumbai with a stopover in Seoul. Upon arrival at Mumbai, the plaintiff's entry to India was denied because he did not have a proper visa. The plaintiff then spent hours in the holding area in Mumbai and Seoul during his return without his diabetes medication, which was in the checked bag. The plaintiff further alleged that on his return flight, he requested in-flight meals for diabetics and the airline served him regular meals. Upon return, the plaintiff suffered certain medical complications arising from his diabetes.
The appellate court upheld the lower court's summary judgment. The court found that even accepting all the allegations of the defendant's behavior, the plaintiff did not provide any expert evidence establishing medical causation.
The appellate court upheld the lower court's summary judgment. The court found that even accepting all the allegations of the defendant's behavior, the plaintiff did not provide any expert evidence establishing medical causation.
Discussion:
It always surprises me to see a case that reached all the way to the Circuit Court level with such awful lawyering. It could not have been news that, in order to establish a medical injury, an expert testimony would have been advisable. With basic blocking and tackling, the case would have provided a more illuminating result about an airline's liability in a situation that can be fairly common.
It always surprises me to see a case that reached all the way to the Circuit Court level with such awful lawyering. It could not have been news that, in order to establish a medical injury, an expert testimony would have been advisable. With basic blocking and tackling, the case would have provided a more illuminating result about an airline's liability in a situation that can be fairly common.
No comments:
Post a Comment