Company boss wins £130k payout from BA after slipping in a puddle of Baileys
Feb 26, 2021, 11:32 pm
#31
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,237
Feb 27, 2021, 1:13 am
#32
Join Date: Oct 2019
Programs: BAEC Silver, Volare Executive / Skyteam Elite+
Posts: 672
It sounds like the guy was terribly unlucky, but I must admit to questioning some of the article accuracy. I've seen a fair few alcohol spillages in airports but generally that's been pubs/lounges, I've never seen someone glugging back Baileys in the queue for a gate, and while I suppose it could have been a dropped bottle of duty free I'd expect a smashed bottle and a litre of the stuff would have been noticed and remedied or coned off - or even just seen and noticed by others waiting. Not that it really matters to the person, the outcome sounds horrific for him. I doubt he sees £130k as a huge 'win'.
Feb 27, 2021, 1:32 am
#33
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
As a tangent thought, would a payment like that as compensation be considered taxable income? Here in Canada, things like long term disability payments are tax free, I wondered if this is considered "making him whole" thus not taxable?
Feb 27, 2021, 7:06 am
#34
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,016
I'd have thought that embarkation and disembarkation includes check-in, baggage drop and reclaim, security and walking from the check-in desk (or the airport door) to the aircraft to the flight and from the flight to the baggage reclaims area (or the airport door), but excluding any unnecessary detours such as detours to shops and lounges and maybe also excluding things related to entry and exit to a country like passport control, customs control and quarantine.
Feb 27, 2021, 7:40 am
#35
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: LHR, LGW
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 3,436
Just a thought but Baileys can look similar to a latte/coffee with milk, in which would be more likely to be found spilt on a floor...however to state that it was Baileys then it must be as it’s an odd drink to make up for a story.
Slipping and falling over on spilt coffee seems more plausible.
A very sad story whatever happened. No amount of money will make up for the long term affects.
Slipping and falling over on spilt coffee seems more plausible.
A very sad story whatever happened. No amount of money will make up for the long term affects.
Feb 27, 2021, 8:45 am
#36
Community Director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norwich, UK
Programs: A3*G, BA Gold, BD Gold (in memoriam), IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 8,476
Negligence on both sides will come at the next stage in determining if there’s further damages due. That may not even come to court, of course - insurance companies tend to take a view on these things and offer a settlement.
Feb 27, 2021, 11:03 am
#38
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,228
I think they may mean boarding gate rather than check in desk. Elsewhere the article talks of “in the process of embarking on international flights” and people do use the term check in desk / boarding gate interchangeably. Unless the Montreal convention basically extends strict liability from, what, the moment you enter the terminal? What if my printer electrocutes me when printing my own boarding pass at home?
On the issue of negligence (not yet proved and to come)
I suppose say (hugely hypothetical) if at a gate whilst trying to scan their mobile BP or whatever someone had dropped a bag of duty free booze right next to the podium, and the agent had called cleaning but carried on calling customers forward for boarding such there were no warning signs etc then I can see the issue. Same at a check in desk come to think of it - ie should close desk & direct customers away not call them forward (if that’s what happened).
Sounds awful for person involved & it again highlights how things can go from ‘normal’ to life altering in a split second. Seriously, health and safety gets a bad reputation but it really is everyone’s responsibility and you cannot be too careful. Regardless of who is ‘responsible’ for doing the cleaning, in somewhere as usually busy as T5 there should not be unattended puddles of liquid on the floor.
On the issue of negligence (not yet proved and to come)
I suppose say (hugely hypothetical) if at a gate whilst trying to scan their mobile BP or whatever someone had dropped a bag of duty free booze right next to the podium, and the agent had called cleaning but carried on calling customers forward for boarding such there were no warning signs etc then I can see the issue. Same at a check in desk come to think of it - ie should close desk & direct customers away not call them forward (if that’s what happened).
Sounds awful for person involved & it again highlights how things can go from ‘normal’ to life altering in a split second. Seriously, health and safety gets a bad reputation but it really is everyone’s responsibility and you cannot be too careful. Regardless of who is ‘responsible’ for doing the cleaning, in somewhere as usually busy as T5 there should not be unattended puddles of liquid on the floor.
Last edited by IAMORGAN; Feb 27, 2021 at 11:32 am
Feb 27, 2021, 1:30 pm
#39
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Marriott Bonvoy
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Englandshire
Programs: SPG LT Plat, BA G, BD*LG, MG Blue+ ...
Posts: 16,032
I think the only advice one could offer to someone who’s quite happy to bear the costs of inadvertently walking into someone else’s negligence is “Mind how you go, then”
Feb 27, 2021, 5:03 pm
#40
Join Date: Feb 2018
Programs: BA Silver, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 259
You mean walk around with your eyes on the floor? People would fall flat on their face even more often then...
Feb 28, 2021, 5:34 am
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
BA did not argue about the strict liability, but instead admitted its liability. So the costs would be minimal.
On the other hand, the burden of proof of negligence is higher. Based on the news article so far, it is my opinion that it will be difficult to argue that BA was negligent, i.e. the victim will lose. On that basis, BA can tax against the judgment for its costs.
So the victim's actual recovery will be significantly less than the strict liability limit.
On the other hand, the burden of proof of negligence is higher. Based on the news article so far, it is my opinion that it will be difficult to argue that BA was negligent, i.e. the victim will lose. On that basis, BA can tax against the judgment for its costs.
So the victim's actual recovery will be significantly less than the strict liability limit.
Last edited by LHR/MEL/Europe FF; Mar 1, 2021 at 1:28 pm Reason: grammar
Feb 28, 2021, 3:41 pm
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
AFAICT, in the majority of civil litigation, including negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proof (a well-known exception is defamation). Montreal's purpose is to limit carriers' liabilities. On that basis, the carrier's burden of proof is simply to disprove plaintiff's case.
I believe this is the correct reading.
Feb 28, 2021, 4:31 pm
#43
Community Director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norwich, UK
Programs: A3*G, BA Gold, BD Gold (in memoriam), IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 8,476
Indeed, it sounds the way you say. But it is not.
AFAICT, in the majority of civil litigation, including negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proof (a well-known exception is defamation). Montreal's purpose is to limit carriers' liabilities. On that basis, the carrier's burden of proof is simply to disprove plaintiff's case.
I believe this is the correct reading.
AFAICT, in the majority of civil litigation, including negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proof (a well-known exception is defamation). Montreal's purpose is to limit carriers' liabilities. On that basis, the carrier's burden of proof is simply to disprove plaintiff's case.
I believe this is the correct reading.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Under the Montreal Convention, air carriers are strictly liable for proven damages up to 128,821.00 special drawing rights (SDR), a mix of currency values established by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) equal to roughly US$175,000.[3][4] Where damages of more than 128,821.00 SDR are sought, the airline may avoid liability by proving that the accident which caused the injury or death was not due to their negligence or was attributable solely to the negligence of a third party.[5] This defense is not available where damages of less than 128,821.00 SDR are sought.
Feb 28, 2021, 4:36 pm
#44
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,228
Right, I’ve looked at this briefly and it seems to me the airline is strictly liable for the first set part of the claim (hence £130k) - it is pegged to IMF SDRs which will have a local currency equivalent.
For the next part of the claim, the pax does not need to prove BA were negligent. BA will be strictly liable unless they (BA) can prove they weren’t negligent. This is interesting as it can be quite hard to ‘prove a negative’. Crystal ball time but this may well settle out of court for a sum north of £130k but less than total amount claimed. I think the claimant might also be able to access at least some of that £130k early.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/f...-july-2017.pdf
For the next part of the claim, the pax does not need to prove BA were negligent. BA will be strictly liable unless they (BA) can prove they weren’t negligent. This is interesting as it can be quite hard to ‘prove a negative’. Crystal ball time but this may well settle out of court for a sum north of £130k but less than total amount claimed. I think the claimant might also be able to access at least some of that £130k early.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/f...-july-2017.pdf
Mar 1, 2021, 3:44 am
#45
Join Date: Jun 2016
Programs: BAEC Gold, IHG Platinum Elite, Avis Presidents Club, , Enterprise Platinum, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 183
The Montreal Convention claim is a relatively low bar, with capped damages. It wasn't worth BA exerting a huge amount of effort to defend.]
The real test of this will be how any civil case for damages is decided. If the person feels they have a claim.
The real test of this will be how any civil case for damages is decided. If the person feels they have a claim.