Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994 · Torts

TortsCommon carriersNegligenceSummary judgmentcommon carrierutmost careoverhead compartmentsfalling baggage

Facts

After an airplane arrived at the gate, a briefcase fell from an overhead compartment and seriously injured Andrews during passenger deplaning. No one knew who opened the compartment or why the briefcase fell, and Andrews did not claim that airline personnel had stowed the briefcase or opened the bin. Instead, she argued that the danger of falling items was foreseeable and that United failed to take adequate preventive measures. Her evidence showed that United had received 135 reports in 1987 of items falling from overhead bins, had added a warning to arrival announcements, and that an expert believed the warning was ineffective and that additional measures such as restraining nets could have reduced the hazard.

Issue

Whether Andrews produced enough evidence to survive summary judgment on her claim that United Airlines, as a common carrier owing passengers the utmost care, negligently failed to take adequate measures to protect passengers from the known hazard of objects falling from overhead compartments.

Rule

Under California law, a common carrier owes passengers a duty of utmost care and must do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under the circumstances, but it is not an insurer of safety. Even a small risk of serious injury may support liability if the risk could be reduced or eliminated by precautions that can reasonably be taken consistent with the mode of conveyance and the practical operation of the carrier's business.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A passenger on a regional train from Sacramento to Oakland was struck in the shoulder when a hard-sided suitcase fell from an overhead rack as riders stood to exit. Sierra Valley Rail had logged dozens of prior reports of shifting luggage, responded by posting signs telling riders to open racks carefully, and a safety consultant testified that simple retaining bars could be added without major disruption or unusual cost.

If the train company moves for summary judgment, what is the strongest argument for denying the motion?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a common carrier owes passengers the utmost care but is not an insurer. Where the carrier recognizes a hazard, even a relatively small risk of serious injury may require more than a warning if additional precautions could reasonably be taken consistent with the mode of conveyance and practical operation of the business. On those facts, the adequacy of warnings versus further measures is a jury question, so summary judgment should be denied. (Derived from Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc. (1994).)