Airline passenger loses 'glass in drink' damages claim

[Jet II]

From Ananova

Airline passenger loses 'glass in drink' damages claim

A British man has lost a retrial over his claims that an in-flight drink on Singapore Airlines contained glass.

Stephen Graham Olding, from Wales, had initially claimed he swallowed glass fragments the size of five-carat diamonds in pineapple juice served during a flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong in September, 2000.

Mr Olding won £4,300 compensation in June.

But District Court Judge Ian Carlson later overturned his ruling in favour of Singapore Airlines after the carrier proved that Mr Olding had tampered with a medical note he had presented as evidence.

Mr Olding had introduced a radiologist's note that identified an object on an X-ray as "likely to be a glass particle". But the airline proved that the note had actually said the object was "unlikely to be a glass particle".

District Court Judge Gerald Muttrie ruled against Mr Olding in the retrial and awarded full costs to Singapore Airlines, the carrier said in a statement.

The airline said it will take steps to reclaim its costs from Mr Olding, who will appear in court again on January 28 to face charges of using a falsified document.


Story filed: 07:46 Tuesday 10th December 2002

Glad to see that he didn't get away with it. Is this type of fraud a growing problem with airlines?

[Notso Fantastic]

Like we're all walking around knowing how large '5 carat diamonds' are!

About 10 years back that gay ex copper was tryting to extract money from BA with charges of official airline harrassment against him, and something in his drinks on flights. I believe it was decisively thrown out- I seem to recall there was a gay circle (no comments please!) that overlapped in the airline who could make use of company telephones to register that calls had been made to his number from BA office phones. Quite sophisticated scam, but I don't think it subsequently worked out. No doubt somebody will put me right..........

[Barney_Gumble]

Hi,


<Wig & Gown Mode on>

I think this type of fraudulent activity is on the increase generally and it is a little concerning for a couple of reasons:

1. When the case is closed notwithstanding who wins and loses, the vindicated party, in this example the airline, will in some way have to foot a bill of costs, be that time used by their own staff (= money) or other non-reclaimable costs. This always adds to the price of the flights in the long term as I am sure it would have to come off the bottom line of the airlines profit.

2. Also this type of activity can adversely affect future similar cases where initially the plaintiff may have a strong case, perhaps weakened by examples of past fraud. Leagal cases, however we think of them, rarely standalone, but do impact on other similar cases by the process of case law or in the eyes of the general public.

Unfortunately (and I must say I don't know the details) assuming this case was dealt with under English civil law, Mr Olding may only have to answer to falsifying documentation. Had he however attempted the same activity under criminal law then he may be facing charges of perverting the course of justice or pehaps perjury which may better have suited this gentlemen.

<Wig & Gown Mode Off>

Any flying lawyers out there who could offer professional comment?

We seem to be encouraging a more litigeous society than was felt necessary by previous generations. I can't say that it is a good thing either as we all end up paying more in the end.

Barney

P.S. These views are not that of the author or anyone else on the planet for that matter so don't try issuing a writ for libel :D :D :D :D

[lomapaseo]

This thread reminded me of the time I was flying first class on UAL between NRT & ORD. During the dinner service I heard a crash behind me and turned to see the FA cleaning up a dropped glass near the food cart. I never thought anymore about it until I started on my salad and when I wiped my mouth on the napkin it was all bloody.

I called the FA over and she was all appologetic and wanted to do something. I calmed her down and went on with my meal.

should I have sued/

[Barney_Gumble]

In my personal opinon as a private individual notwithstanding any other views, comments, laws or statues :D :D :D

I would not have taken any action other than ask for another can of "Duff" beer.

But then again I am a cartoon charater who drinks and burps a great deal in Moe's tavern so what would I know.

Being a little more serious, one would ask was the damage permanent or the inconvenience intolerable and did the mental anguish leave a lasting scar.

There are some legal tests that can be applied to these type of cases I am sure and these very dependant the laws under which state/sovereign territory you are acting. Also I suspect that demonstration of negligence on behalf of the FA would have to be proved to the balance of probs i.e. could he/she reasonably have suspected that a radius of x metres could have been infected by the results of such a glass/floor collision and should she have removed all the meals in the said x metres radius as a precaution etc etc etc (now I am waffling). What would have happened then I wonder, hmmmm no meals for 1st class passengers read the headlines........

I guess the acid reasonable test is that at the time you didn't think to challenge, maybe that was the right decision. Some folk tend to make a living out of court actions and these are the folk who I see as daft. On the other hand one could argue that it is those who are prepared to challenge in court that keep those, who otherwise would act inappropriatedly from doing so.

I think I shall have another "Duff" and sit right on the fence here :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Last time I posted I got ripped to sheds so have learned a lesson ;)

Barney Gumble

P.S. Now even I am not sure whether I am joking or not :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Globaliser]

Barney_Gumble: Unfortunately (and I must say I don't know the details) assuming this case was dealt with under English civil law, Mr Olding may only have to answer to falsifying documentation. Had he however attempted the same activity under criminal law then he may be facing charges of perverting the course of justice or pehaps perjury which may better have suited this gentlemen. Well, if he knowingly produced and used a forged (falsified) document in a civil case he could certainly go down for the requisite criminal charges even though the underlying case was civil - attempting to pervert the course of justice, perjury and using a forged document all seem to be possibilities. Obviously, whether or not any of it would be feasible would depend on the detailed facts, the strength of the evidence etc. etc.

[Barney_Gumble]

Mr Globaliser,

I stand corrected, yes it would be possible dependant on the strength of the evidential case as you rightly point out sir. I would be interested to see what charges are laid.

BG

[cwatters]

He must have a screw loose. What did he expect the medical expert to say when it came to court? The airline legal team was bound to question the expert...

Q: Why did you think the object on the x-ray was glass?
A: I didn't.

[Globaliser]

I don't know all the details, but it rather sounds like there was a trial. The claimant was obviously relying on the new procedural rules and/or the financial value of the claim to ensure that the expert witness would not give live evidence to the court and therefore would not be questioned. Both factors tend to put pressure on defendants to agree to accept written medical evidence as it stands.

I expect that if the court had acceded to a request from the defendant that the expert did attend for questioning (which is something courts are increasingly reluctant to countenance for a claim of this size), the claimant might have suddenly developed a strong desire to settle the claim before it got to a trial.

Good work, whoever caught this guy out. I wonder how the truth came to light.

[Alpha Leader]

Based on statements Mr. Olding had made after his initial (and, as it turns out now, short-lived) victory at one of his favourite drinking holes in Kowloon, I am not surprised at the outcome of the retrial

;)