Hipster Airlines Case Summary

1378 Words3 Pages

I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Trini Tang brought this action against Defendant Hipster Airlines, Co., d/b/a Hipster an Illinois company arising out of an injury that occurred on February 1, 2015, in San Diego, California when Plaintiff was on Defendant’s aircraft. Plaintiff brings a claim for Negligence and Vicarious liability, both of which are premised on the allegation that Defendant's negligence was the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Trini Tang (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) maintains her principal residence in the Southern District of California. …show more content…

Southwest Airline Co., Defendant operated Southwest Flight departing from Ontario, California to St. Louis, Missouri. Thirty minutes into the flight, the airplane headed into severe and turbulent weather, causing it to rock and lurch about violently for an extended period of time as a result, Plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injuries. The court found for the defendant reasoning that a commercial airline is a common carrier and subject to the duties and liabilities of common carriers. Cudney v.Midcontinent Airlines, 98 F. Supp. 403 (E.D. Mo. 1951). A common carrier must exercise the highest degree of care to its passengers while in transit. Behrenhausen, 967 S.W.2d at 217. However, “a carrier of passengers by airplane is not an insurer of the passenger's safety.” Cudney, 363 S.W.2d at 927. Thus, it is not presumed that every commercial aviation accident is the result of negligence. Id. This case signifies that Defendant does not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from any harm engaged in the business of transporting …show more content…

Mitchell v. Gonzales, 54 Cal. 3d 1041, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 913, 819 P.2d 872 (1991). According to the plaintiff explosion of the engine only caused smoke inside of the cabin, she sustained injuries when the flight attendant pushed her. Compl. ¶ 9. Therefore the explosion of the engine cannot be the substantial cause of her injuries. Moreover, Plaintiff stated that she sustained serious injuries to her right ankle and shin Compl. ¶ 15 however she failed to narrow down the broad meaning of serious injuries to explain how her ankle was injured. This statement makes it difficult to understand the extent of her medical

Open Document