American Airlines Sued Over Teen’s Fatal In-Flight Medical Emergency: Defibrillator Failed, Crew Didn’t Know What To Do?
Two years ago American Airlines Flight 614 was flying from San Pedro Sula, Honduras to Miami when a 14-year old passenger on board went into cardiac arrest and lost consciousness.
The flight diverted to Cancun but it was too late. The family filed suit last year against American Airlines, claiming that the onboard defibrillator that the airline is required to carry had a dead battery and could not provide the child with the necessary shock. It also claimed that flight attendants were not properly trained in how to use the machine.
According to eyewitnesses, each time the AED gave a “clear” warning for people to step back from Greenidge’s body so that a shock could be administered, a shock was not delivered. Instead, the machine simply kept advising that CPR should be continued.
The family originally sued in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit has been moved to the Northern District of Texas where American Airlines is headquartered. The family filed its lawsuit there today.
While largely repeating the claims in the original suit, it appears to me that there are new allegations as well – that American Airlines is intentionally or negligently hiding the defibrillator. Specifically spoliation, which is the the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.
Flight attendants working for US-based airlines are required to be trained in CPR and in use of the automatic external defibrillator. The FAA requires simulated AED practice scenarios. And flight attendants are trained to do this even if no onboard medical personnel are available. Airlines generally consult with medical personnel on the ground.
- In this case, two medically-trained passengers did volunteer
- The lawsuit alleges that cabin crew did not know how to handle the situation
At least one member of the airline personnel team was panicking and appeared to have no idea what to do during Greenidge’s medical emergency.
- And also that they “were not trained to use the type of AED machine that was on board AA Flight 614.”
It’s a tragedy that this child lost his life. We’ll eventually learn the facts around the onboard medical equipment. Whether or not it would have made a difference we may not ever learn, but if the AED’s batter pack was indeed dead that is a black mark on the airline – and that new procedures will be put in place to better ensure onboard medical equipment is functioning properly.
Unsurprisingly, all that American Airlines would offer at this time is:
Our thoughts are with Mr. Greenridge’s loved ones. We are going to decline further comment given this matter involves pending litigation.
Aside from the sad particulars here, the suit raises important questions.
- If the required equipment was not properly functioning, was the airline operating in contravention of its minimum equipment list? Equipment works properly until it doesn’t. How close to departure would it need to be tested? And is that foolproof guarantee that it will work properly inflight?
- If the airline provided required training, consistent with FAA regulations, and the flight attendant failed to learn, remember, or perform what was trained is the airline liable for that?
This second question has even broader implications. Plenty of flight attendants operate for airlines despite being unable to carry out ostensibly required duties. There are crewmembers who have worked for U.S. airlines that couldn’t secure their own doors, for instance. They’ve taken and been passed through recurring training. What sort of liability is there for the airline?
It’s rarely the case that flight attendant safety training matters. Crew often speak to their first duty being to safety. But when it comes down to it, how many of them are up to that challenge? Perhaps required training is more than enough for most incidents, and for the frequency with which that training is needed. But is it actually less useful in ensuring recollection, comprehension, and deployment than many realize? Moving this case to U.S District Court for the Northern District of Texas from SDNY certainly benefits American. Other than the obvious tragedy involved, my interest though is in these broader questions.
