$800,000 RECOVERY - AIRPORT NEGLIGENCE - FAILURE TO REMOVE CARGO CONTAINER FROM BAGGAGE TUNNEL - FAILURE OF CITY TO MAINTAIN TUNNEL MIRROR - DISLOCATED FRACTURE OF LEFT FOOT - COMPARTMENT SYNDROM - MULTIPLE SURGERIES.

Philadelphia County

The plaintiff was employed as a ramp agent for an independent contractor airline at the Philadelphia International Airport in 2001 when he struck a cargo container while driving a baggage tug in one of the airport’s baggage tunnels. The plaintiff alleged the defendant airline was negligent in dropping and failing to remove the cargo container. The City of Philadelphia was also named as a defendant in the case for allegedly failing to maintain a mirror situated in the baggage tunnel. The defendants argued that container was not blocking the roadway and the plaintiff was speeding and was comparatively negligent in causing the accident.

Begriming in 1999, the plaintiff’s duties involved loading and off-loading baggage and other cargo from international flights for airlines which had contracted with his employer for such services.

In the early evening hours of January 17, 2001, the plaintiff, then age 38, was working with a crew assigned to unload a flight (not one of the defendant airline’s flights). Pursuant to standard operating procedure, the baggage was placed onto baggage carts which were pulled by a motor vehicle known as a “tug.” The tug was then driven across the ramp to a road which leads to a tunnel under the terminals of the airport (the customs tunnel road), where the baggage is placed on conveyors for transport to the baggage claims area.

Shortly after 7:00 p.m. on the night in questions, the plaintiff was driving a tug pulling a baggage cart. He entered the sharply curved customs tunnel road, which was constructed in a configuration similar to the spiral ramp of a parking garage. As the plaintiff traveled down and around a blind curve in the road, he claimed he was suddenly confronted by a large cargo container which had been dropped and allowed to remain on the road. The plaintiff contended the defendant airline dominated operation of the terminal above the tunnel and had dropped the cargo container.

The plaintiff testified that his desperate attempt to avoid colliding with the container was unsuccessful, he struck the container and fell from the tug onto the roadway. The tug, careening from one side of the customs tunnel road to the other, ran over the plaintiff’s left foot.

The plaintiff claimed the City of Philadelphia, as owner of the airport, was responsible for maintaining the roadway and traffic safety devices installed at the airport, including a mirror placed on the wall of the customs tunnel road. The function of the mirror was to allow drivers to see around the otherwise blind curve. The plaintiff claimed the mirror had been nonfunctional (missing the mirrored glass) for years prior to the plaintiff’s accident.

The plaintiff sustained a Lisfranc fracture dislocation and a compartment syndrome of his left foot. He underwent multiple surgical procedures, including open reduction and internal fixation, a fasciotomy and surgical debridement. The plaintiff experienced swelling of the foot, and his physician opined he may require additional surgery as a result of foot and ankle pain, limited range of motion and posttraumatic arthritis. The plaintiff claimed past medical expenses of $78,000.

The plaintiff initially resumed part-time and then full-time employment with his employer, but then claimed a total permanent disability due to a worsening of his condition. The plaintiff sough approximately $14,000 in past loss of earnings and future loss of earnings for the remainder of his work life.

The defendant city claimed the mirror was present in the custom tunnel road at the time of the accident. The defendant airline maintained the plaintiff exceeded the speed limit while driving the tug. The speed limit in the area of the accident was 5 mph. The defendant argued that a tug being operated at the proper speed of 5 mph would have easily been able to avoid the container, even if it had been in the location described by the plaintiff. The defendant’s expert engineer prepared a computer animation to support the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent.

On the second day of trial, the defendant airline settled the plaintiff’s claim for $800,000. The defendant City of Philadelphia settled two days prior to trial for an undisclosed sum on a joint tortfeasor basis.

REFERENCE

Chobert vs. City of Philadelphia, et al. Case no. 01-06-1097; Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro, 12-03.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Mark W. Tanner and Daniel J. Mann of Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner and Weinstock in Philadelphia. Attorney for defendant airline: David Zeehandelaar of Blank, Rome Comisky & McCausley in Philadelphia

COMMENTARY

The plaintiff argued that the danger in dropping a cargo container on a sharply curved tunnel road was obvious and there was no question as to its existence. The presence of the container was observed, not only by the plaintiff and his passenger, but by many others who came to the scene immediately after the accident occurred.

However, the exact location of the container was at issue and the defendant took the position that it was not blocking the roadway and the plaintiff could have easily avoided the collision if he had not been speeding. The defense argued that there were no photographs of the container in the roadway, despite the defendant’s supervisor being on the scene within 20 minutes of the accident. The only photographs taken depicted the container away from the roadway.