San Diego office partners Patrick Kearns and Sarena Kustic prevailed on their motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a major global airline. The case arose from an incident in which the plaintiff caused a disruption on board the airline’s plane before takeoff. After the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with flight attendant instructions, the captain ordered him removed from the flight. Upon removal, the plaintiff then failed to comply with police officers’ commands and was subdued and arrested. The plaintiff sued our client, claiming that by removing him from the aircraft, the airline set in motion a series of events leading to his arrest and allegedly causing him to sustain personal injuries during that arrest, as well as a series of related physical and mental injury damages. The plaintiff’s claims included negligence, assault and battery, and false imprisonment/arrest, among others.

Patrick and Sarena moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s conduct warranted his removal from the aircraft and that his subsequent arrest, together with the actions of law enforcement, constituted intervening and unforeseeable events that precluded liability for his alleged injuries. They further argued that the airline was immune from liability under 49 U.S.C. §44941, which protects air carriers and their employees when reporting perceived threats to law enforcement.

The court agreed with Wilson Elser’s arguments, finding no genuine dispute of material fact that no airline employee touched or otherwise harmed the plaintiff and, therefore, that no assault or battery occurred. The court further held that the airline’s decision to contact law enforcement for assistance fell squarely within the immunity protections afforded by 49 U.S.C. § 44941. Accordingly, the court concluded that the airline was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.