UK: Air Carrier Liability
Olding v. Singapore Airlines Ltd: a salutary lesson for “fraudulent” claimants

Airlines are often the target of suspicious claims. Amongst the most bizarre are allegations that passengers have swallowed glass particles in drinks served to them during flights, allegedly resulting in both physical and mental injury. Typically, such claims involve lengthy and detailed investigations, require expensive expert evidence and the attendance of many witnesses (cabin crew) and are difficult to resolve. The recent Hong Kong High Court decision of Olding v. Singapore Airlines Limited [2003] 1 HKC 352 is a good example.

In 2001, Mr. Olding issued proceedings against Singapore Airlines, claiming damages for personal injuries after he claimed he had swallowed glass particles in pineapple juice given to him. He claimed that he had reported this to a steward and that later that night, he felt stomach cramps and suffered rectal bleeding. He alleged that he continued to feel unwell for three weeks, was unable to attend his business and had a lost a contract worth US$6,410. Eventually, he contacted Singapore Airlines and went to see their doctors. No foreign body was found but he was told if he felt unwell further tests should be done. The doctors also said that glass often does not show up on x-rays.

The judge at the original trial gave judgment to the plaintiff but before the order was perfected, it emerged that a set of hospital notes in relation to an x-ray of the plaintiff ’s abdomen had been altered to read "likely to be glass particles" from the original wording of the doctor’s notes "unlikely to be glass particles". The Plaintiff could not explain why there was an alteration. The judge set aside his judgment and ordered a retrial.

The only male steward attending the economy class cabin on the flight in question gave evidence that he had received no complaint and there was no record of any complaint made to the ground staff of glass in pineapple juice. He explained how the cabin crew poured juice from cans into plastic cups in the galley. No glass was kept in the galley in the economy section except bottled drinks on the trolley but there had been no breakages recorded. The plaintiff said this was not the steward he complained to.

The court dismissed the plaintiff ’s claim. The court took the view that the plaintiff ’s evidence was inconsistent on some points and that the medical evidence was at best equivocal. The court determined that it would have been possible to accept the plaintiff ’s evidence, but for the altered copy of the doctor’s note. This was a false document put in by the plaintiff at the first trial, which he could not explain. In the circumstances the court treated the plaintiff ’s evidence as suspicious. It was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff had swallowed glass in the pineapple juice and there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence from the defendant’s steward that there was no complaint.

Having dismissed Mr. Olding’s complaint the court nevertheless considered the applicability of the "all necessary measures" defence available to a carrier under Article 20 of the Warsaw Convention. The Court observed that the phrase "all necessary measures" should be read to mean that the defendant had taken such precautions that were appropriate to the risk of injury. On the facts the risk of finding foreign bodies in a canned drink was very slight. It was so slight that even the most prudent airline could not be expected to have its cabin crew sieve or check every drink for foreign bodies. Even if the Plaintiff had succeeded in proving that there had been glass fragments in the juice, which he drank and which caused him injury, the Defendant would not be liable by the application of the Article 20 defence. The Plaintiff could in any event only recover damages for bodily injury. Economic loss including loss of the contract was not provided for.

The Plaintiff was subsequently prosecuted for fraud.