A necessary part of having a court system and legal system open to all citizens (or that's the goal, obviously with inequalities still present) is the truism that people can and do file frivolous lawsuits (. . . .SLF/attorney).
This one, I'll venture to predict, will have a very short life. The airline did not breach any duties to anyone. Even if we set aside the rather important fact that the flight ended safely despite the challenges imposed by the emergency, and just looking at the alleged upsetting visual of an engine in serious failure and distress, as far as my legal knowledge goes there is no legal obligation on the part of an airline to guarantee that the inherently hazardous activity of travel by air will never present scary moments. (Yes, air travel is the safest mode of travel statistically, but it's still inherently hazardous -- it's just that people and machines have become very good at doing it safely.)
For some other community on some other forum, maybe this case is grist for the mill which grinds on and on about changing court rules so that "the loser pays" the other side's attorney's fees becomes the rule, not the exception, in courts in the U.S.