British Airways Flight Attendant's £72,500 Compensation Bid Dismissed by Court
A British Airways flight attendant who suffered serious injuries when she was thrown into the air during severe turbulence has lost her £72,500 compensation claim after a judge cleared the airline's pilots of any wrongdoing.
Violent Turbulence Incident Over Mumbai
Laura Lanigan, a 56-year-old veteran flight attendant from Richmond, Surrey, was working aboard a British Airways Boeing 777 preparing to land in Mumbai, India, in June 2019 when the aircraft experienced what she described as a "violent drop".
The incident occurred during the final stages of a nine-hour journey from London Heathrow to Mumbai. Mrs Lanigan was in the aircraft's galley when the plane suffered a sudden and severe bout of turbulence that caused it to rise and drop rapidly.
"I remember trying to move. It felt like forever," Mrs Lanigan told Central London County Court during her compensation claim hearing.
Severe Injuries Sustained During Incident
During the turbulence episode, Mrs Lanigan was hurled into the air and crashed back to the galley floor, suffering multiple injuries:
- A fractured left knee from twisting as she landed
- A dislocated shoulder from hitting galley furniture
- Additional impact from an unsecured water canister that fell on top of her
The flight attendant described the turbulence as the worst she had experienced in approximately 30 years of flying. She was eventually taken off the aircraft in a wheelchair following the incident.
Legal Battle Over Storm Cloud Proximity
Mrs Lanigan's legal team argued that the accident resulted from the pilot flying too close to a cumulonimbus storm cloud. Her barrister, Sinclair Cramsie, claimed the aircraft was within 20 miles of the cloud formation and that the pilot should have either diverted further away or instructed cabin crew to sit down and fasten their seatbelts.
"We say that the path that was being taken was sufficiently proximate to the cumulonimbus cloud that it was within the danger zone," Mr Cramsie argued during proceedings.
British Airways' Defence and Court Ruling
British Airways contested the claim, with their barrister Peter Savory presenting evidence from two flight officers who stated they had seen no storm clouds from the cockpit. Instead, they reported only "fluffy white clouds" - identified by weather experts as cumulus clouds - in the vicinity of the aircraft.
Judge David Saunders, presiding over the case, ruled that meteorological evidence presented during the trial did show high turbulence in the area but noted that the weather expert had deferred to the experienced flight crew's observations.
"Having considered the evidence, I am persuaded that, with their experience, they would have been able to distinguish between cumulonimbus and cumulus clouds," Judge Saunders stated in his judgment.
The judge further emphasised that the pilots had acted professionally and that their evidence was clear and consistent. He concluded that Mrs Lanigan had not proven her case, stating: "In my view, looking at this overall, it was a very unfortunate, but unexpected and not reasonably foreseeable, accident."
Implications for Aviation Safety Claims
This ruling highlights several important considerations for future aviation injury claims:
- The court's deference to experienced flight crew observations over meteorological data
- The high burden of proof required to establish negligence in turbulence-related incidents
- The distinction between foreseeable risks and unexpected accidents in aviation operations
Judge Saunders noted that while the incident was undoubtedly traumatic for Mrs Lanigan, the evidence did not support her claim that the pilots had breached their duty of care by flying through a danger zone near storm clouds.
The dismissal of the £72,500 damages claim represents a significant legal outcome for both British Airways and the aviation industry, reinforcing the principle that unforeseeable turbulence incidents may not constitute negligence even when resulting in serious injuries to crew members.
