The Fort Worth Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant airline where plaintiff pleaded negligence per se (res ipsa loquitor).
Robert Steven Ritchey v. American Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. (No. 02-23-00215-CV; February 8, 2024) stemmed from plaintiff’s claim that the earbuds he was provided during a flight produced a loud pop when the captain made an announcement over the aircraft’s PA system, causing temporary hearing loss and tinnitus. Plaintiff sued American, alleging res ipsa loquitor. American filed a traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed. The court first observed that “res ipsa loquitor allows the circumstances surrounding an accident to support a negligence finding only when two factors are present: (1) the accident’s character is such that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) the instrumentality causing the injury is shown to have been under the defendant’s management and control” (citing Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948, 950 (Tex. 1990)). Here plaintiff conceded that American did not manufacture the earplugs in question, the media system into which he plugged them, or the PA system over which the pilot addressed the passengers. Plaintiff, who represented himself in the lawsuit, likewise did not know if American had negligently maintained the equipment, only that it had been preinstalled in the aircraft before delivery to American. Moreover, American had not received any prior complaints about the equipment, nor did plaintiff present any evidence that American negligently maintained the equipment or that any American personnel had committed a negligent act.
American argued that Plaintiff failed to challenge every ground upon which summary judgment could have been granted, that is, duty, breach, and proximate cause. The court of appeals agreed and affirmed summary judgment on that basis. But in a footnote the court explained that even so, plaintiff’s res ipsa theory would have failed anyway because one or more plausible causes for plaintiff’s injury were possible, including defective equipment, pilot error, American’s error, or the existing conditions on the flight.
