Woman injured by obese passenger offered $20,000 by Virgin Atlantic

October 22, 2002 9:14 AM

Woman injured by obese passenger offered $20,000 by Virgin Atlantic With two-thirds of US citizens overweight, and one-third classified as obese, some airlines are charging one person for two seats (previous discussion). But who's responsible when a large passenger injures someone — the passenger or the airline?
posted by dayvin (58 comments total)

What a smart lady. Take the $20,000 and run, indeed.
posted by agregoli at 9:16 AM on October 22, 2002

20,000 is very little for blood clots, compared to the 80 million paid out for hot McD coffee dontchathink?
posted by dabitch at 9:19 AM on October 22, 2002

I urge everyone to read the previous discussion before posting, as we have already discussed the hell out of this topic.
posted by Hildago at 9:22 AM on October 22, 2002

The article doesn't say how she was crushed though, other than the larger lady saying "I'm sitting on your lap". Even so, if the 'overlap' was the cause, Mrs. Hewson was still able to stand for a bit, and even sit in the hostesses chair, so constant 'overlap' couldn't be to blame.

I've sat next to larger people on planes, and apart from the occasional elbow or thighs colliding, it's not like my muscles were in grave danger. Can anyone tell me how she injured herself, I'm honestly at a loss.
posted by remlapm at 9:42 AM on October 22, 2002

Well, I still think it was smart of her to take the money. Too often you see these things go to court and then the company of course will rescind their offer of payment. Smart lady!
posted by agregoli at 9:43 AM on October 22, 2002

The sidebar has a survey that asks whether, in the event of an obese passenger taking up two seats on a flight, the airline or the passenger should bear the costs. Interestingly enough, while one-third of Americans are overweight, 85 percent of respondents replied that the passenger should bear the costs. This might point to a high level of self-exemption/denial when it comes to weight issues in this country; i.e., "they're all fat, I just haven't exercised in a while."
posted by risenc at 9:44 AM on October 22, 2002

20,000 is very little for blood clots, compared to the 80 million paid out for hot McD coffee dontchathink?

It was $160,000 compensatory, $480,000 punitive. And it wasn't frivolous. Read the whole story here.
posted by starvingartist at 9:45 AM on October 22, 2002

I'm lost to how this woman was actually injured physically.

after suffering a blood clot, torn leg muscles and sciatica following a flight

the woman asked if she was okay, saying to her: "I'm sitting on your lap." "I had three sessions of sitting in the hostess seat and I stood for a little while," added Hewson.

I'm taking it the damages were paid due to this;

The freelance writer, who travelled with her husband Roy, 67, said she spent most of her holiday in bed. "It ruined the holiday. We went out very little."

They just need to update the seats, as, have you noticed clothes sizes are larger as a large is more like extra-large now.

Or quit be a glutton of a society, wait bigger seats is a gluttony.........
posted by thomcatspike at 9:45 AM on October 22, 2002

technically, you could get blood clots from sitting in a really cramped space for a long time - so it doesn't necessarily mean the obese passenger next to her was to blame, but rather the tiny seats. Bigger seats now!
posted by dabitch at 9:46 AM on October 22, 2002

I urge everyone to read the previous discussion before posting, as we have already discussed the hell out of this topic.

Agreed. It also got pretty ugly. Let's not rehash that.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:52 AM on October 22, 2002

Well, damn, when can I sue the airline for the rude man who insists upon sitting with his legs spread wide , taking up significant space in my seat area and hogging the arm rest the entire trip?

Or how about the oaf in front of me that slams her seat back into my knees, and leaves her seat in that position for the entire trans-oceanic flight.

Or maybe the airlines for making seats smaller and smaller, and closer together to cram more passengers into the plane.
posted by Red58 at 9:53 AM on October 22, 2002

dabitch: so refuse to fly on compressed airlines.

The blood clot could have been made far more likely by tissue compression from having a large object compressed against you for an extended period of time.

Frankly, I'd be delighted to pay less than obese people for airline seats. Perhaps airfare by weight since moving the big bodies counts as more weight. If my airfare were average at the 175 pound mark then my wife would be much less since she's 110 pounds. That'd work. Cheaper travel for all, all you aren't overweight that is.
posted by shagoth at 9:54 AM on October 22, 2002

This is a fascinating scenario to me. As dayvin said, with so many Americans (and others) becoming obese and the end of this trend nowhere in sight, this is really the tip of the iceberg. I'm surprised Virgin took the risk of setting the precedent of settling. So what is the solution to this? (Besides wider seats, which would be too cost-inhibitive, I'm assuming.) "Fat" seats? Weight/girth restrictions?
posted by widdershins at 10:06 AM on October 22, 2002

Blod clots and air travel. The medical community believes that there is very probably a link between long flights and blod clots. A combination of the airlines thinning the oxygen, cramped quarters, long stretches of time and dehydration all combine to create blod clot heaven. so maybe we could cut the fat lady some slack.
posted by pejamo at 10:09 AM on October 22, 2002

Interestingly enough, while one-third of Americans are overweight, 85 percent of respondents replied that the passenger should bear the costs. This might point to a high level of self-exemption/denial when it comes to weight issues in this country

Or, it might point to a high level of willingness to take responsibility for problems created by one's own ballooning body.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 10:23 AM on October 22, 2002

I'm not a giant by any measure, though I am a larger guy, and always have been. I think as long as you're not in the Big & Tall section of the store, then you should fit in a seat like the kind on airplanes. Guess what? Last time I flew, it was tight. Perhaps the airline industry felt $20,000 would be a small price to pay, because if it went to court, the courts just might realize that those seats they've got are completely unacceptable.
posted by benjh at 10:28 AM on October 22, 2002

I think they should both be liable. If I were the judge, I'd have put the lion's share of the liability on the passenger, and a bit on Virgin:

» The passenger, not the airline, injured this woman. This apparently morbidly obese person decided that her comfort and her pocketbook was more important than the health and comfort of those around her - a typically American reaction. If she couldn't sit her fat tockus in her own seat without oozing over, she should've bought another seat or had the common courtesy to get the hell off the plane.
» The airline condoned the injury, by not following their own seating guidelines for obese people. Apparently, the revenue gained by keeping this fat woman in her seat offset the inconvenience of kicking her off the plane (and the injuries suffered by the woman forced to sit next to her.)

Airlines do have seating guidelines, but have difficulties applying them because of the various pro-obesity groups just waiting to sue them. Another issue - considering the behavior of most people, imagine having to tell some American woman that she's not welcome on a plane because she's too fat to take just one seat and either too poor, too lazy, or too rude to buy two seats. Yep, I can just see the screaming fit and litigation that'll follow on that one. "I was discriminated against because I was fat!"

Sheesh.
posted by FormlessOne at 10:43 AM on October 22, 2002

shagoth: I do refuse to fly cramped airlines actually [even though I am petite, ei: short and teeny] - Swissair is still pretty ok, seat-size wise. Perhaps we should list airlines that are really cramped so we know which ones to avoid?

starvingartist: - ta for the link. Didn't that lady sue McD's twice? which would be rather frivoulous...

ah, pejamo: - good link, exactly what I was trying to say.
posted by dabitch at 10:46 AM on October 22, 2002

There seems to a rash of these kind of words on MeFi today. pro-obesity groups. Is anyone really PRO-obesity?
posted by benjh at 10:49 AM on October 22, 2002

Or maybe the airlines for making seats smaller and smaller, and closer together to cram more passengers into the plane.

Are the airlines really doing this, or are we just getting bigger and bigger? My own guess, which is as good as anyone's, is that some discount airlines have done this, but not the major carriers. Didn't American Airlines actually do the opposite and take out seats last year?

If a discount airline is cheaper because they cram more seats in, I can either put up with less room knowing I get a cheaper ticket, or stay with the big carriers and pay regular prices for more room. I can't both have the cake and eat it.

Does anyone here know for a fact if airlines have more seats in any particular plane than they did, say 20 years ago? And if so, which airlines do it?
posted by Triplanetary at 10:51 AM on October 22, 2002

I'm 5'4" and barely 120 pounds, and *I* barely fit in a standard airline seat. If the average seat is smaller than the average person, any damage that results should be the airline's responsibility.
posted by kewms at 10:51 AM on October 22, 2002

Speaking of suggested links, there's a site that (I think) lists the various commercial jet models and their seat configurations. Anyone remember this?

Regarding the issue at hand- yes, in principle the obese women shares the blame. But she probably can't be assigned liability, since the airline gave her the seat. A few more of these lawsuits, and I'd expect more airlines to start charging like SouthWest.

(can we re-open that argument? I missed it the first time around and have been dying to get my licks in...)
posted by mkultra at 10:57 AM on October 22, 2002

There seems to a rash of these kind of words on MeFi today. pro-obesity groups. Is anyone really PRO-obesity?

This is the closest I've found, and they have a funny URL: http://www.obesity.org. They have a few choice words about Southwest's two-seat policy here.
posted by Triplanetary at 10:58 AM on October 22, 2002

US Air (yes, the bankrupt airline) told me this point blank on my last flight. They moved all the seats up 4 inches each, and added an extra two rows at the back. I would have been better off riding in the overhead compartment.
posted by benjh at 10:58 AM on October 22, 2002

From Triplanetary's link: In 2000, US Airways flew — for free — a 300 pound Vietnamese potbellied pig in first class from coast to coast to accommodate a passenger who needed the pig to reduce stress.

So, if the pig was 300 pounds, how much did the passenger weigh?
posted by dayvin at 11:05 AM on October 22, 2002

US Air (yes, the bankrupt airline) told me this point blank on my last flight. They moved all the seats up 4 inches each, and added an extra two rows at the back.

Uhhh.... if they moved *all* of the seats forward 4 inches, you've got just as much legroom as you had before.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:08 AM on October 22, 2002

You're also sitting in the cockpit (well not quite). Perhaps benjh meant all but the first, which would make sense if you take the time to think about it...
posted by Orange Goblin at 11:19 AM on October 22, 2002

The seat size is actually irrelevant to the article we're discussing. They stated right in the beginning that the obese woman had to put the armrest up to sit down. She was never forced to sit in a single seat, big or small. Instead, she just spilled over and as a result, hurt the woman next to her.

Responsibility should be shared by both the obese passenger and the airline. The large woman should have either exited the plane, or been required to sit in the seat she bought (as divided by the arm rest from the seat next to her).
posted by JamieStar at 11:25 AM on October 22, 2002

Sorry, wasn't clear... they reduced the amount of space between each seat by 4 inches.
posted by benjh at 11:31 AM on October 22, 2002

somewhat related feature in the nypress a few weeks ago
posted by 11235813 at 11:42 AM on October 22, 2002

This apparently morbidly obese person decided that her comfort and her pocketbook was more important than the health and comfort of those around her - a typically American reaction....imagine having to tell some American woman that she's not welcome on a plane because she's too fat

LONDON, England -- A woman injured while squeezed next to an obese passenger on a trans-Atlantic flight

Where do you see the obese passanger described as "American"?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:05 PM on October 22, 2002

11235813: Which was discussed here a week ago. As was much of this stuff. And what wasn't discussed there was hashed over in earlier threads on obesity. But what the heck.
posted by languagehat at 12:11 PM on October 22, 2002

Does anyone here know for a fact if airlines have more seats in any particular plane than they did, say 20 years ago? And if so, which airlines do it?

I think it's more along the lines of airlines have purchased planes that have smaller seats. 757s are notoriously bad, and Canadair jets have to have the smallest 17 inch seats around.

United, Northwest,Delta, and American all list their various seat sizes in various planes. Strangely, I can't find Southwest seating sizes, which I find funny considering their policy on buying extra seats. Personally I find Northwest to be terrible, every single plane they fly has 17" seats. My favorite plane lately has been Uniteds 767-300ER. 18" seats that feel like the lap of luxury. Getting on one of these after having been cramped in a 757 for 5 hours can make you realize just how much 1 inch means when it comes to seating.

Many airlines keep advertising more seating room, however it tends to be misleading, because it's only seat pitch they've increased. (Not that I'm complaining even there, I'm tall enough I tend to spend the entire flight with my knees in constant peril of being squashed if the person in front of me is discourteous enough to recline their seats (something I think should be banned in coach class)). However, while all these airlines advertise this, they keep moving more and more of their fleets to planes that have narrower seats (757s are fairly popular right now), so the seats really *are* getting smaller.

Personally, I take the time to try to find flights that are on planes that have larger seats, and will even put up with a stop-over if I have to to get those bigger seats. While 1 inch seems insignificant, it's amazing what the difference is. (My perspective on airline seats comes from being 6 foot, 280 pounds. Yes, I'm somewhat overweight, but I don't feel I'm unusually large, and I find most of my problems in planes is actually from my shoulders, and I find I spend the entire flight trying to pull my arms in front of me so they don't stick into the seats next to me. (I never fit into those small seats even when I was skinny because of my shoulders)).
posted by piper28 at 12:32 PM on October 22, 2002

Why should the obese passanger be liable? She contracted with the airline for a seat on the plane. By buying the ticket, she gained a legally enforceable entitlement to fly on that plane. If the seats were too small for an obese person, the airline shouldn't have sold her the seat or should have made her buy two. It didn't.

If anyone is to blame here it is the airline. However, I'm not even sure that the airline should be held liable either. The relevent test for whether a person (or company) should be liable for another's injury is whether or not the injury was foreseeable. If there had been a rash of these types of injuries previous to this one, then maybe there was foreseeability. But this seems more like a totally unforeseeable freak injury, and if that's the case it's not fair to make the airline pay.
posted by boltman at 12:35 PM on October 22, 2002

Tend to agree with boltman (and several others on this) that it isn't really the passengers fault. Perhaps it would be easier for the airlines to have an obese section of the plane with larger seats available. Understandably the airline doesn't want to put too many of them in but it would be good publicity for them to accommodate obese people as well as your average joe, not to mention saving me from being squashed!
In the coach section i get about 2" on either side for my hips ... seems fair that a seat 50% bigger for chunky people would be enough to give them the same space. Note this is DIFFERENT than having them sitting up in first class where the seats ARE bigger 'cause the service would be the same as coach, as would the sardineness of your neighbour beside you.
posted by clamb at 12:58 PM on October 22, 2002

"they reduced the amount of space between each seat by 4 inches."

I think, personally, that this is worse than wider or more narrow seats. I'm 6 ft 4, and when I'm sitting in those seats and the person in front puts their seat back you can hear my knees going crunch. The problem is: What can the airlines do? Build massive seats? People come in different sizes.

Make every seat the size of those 1st class ones. :)
posted by dazed_one at 1:02 PM on October 22, 2002

I agree boltman. As the airlines can have us find fault with each other instead of themselves we will loose customer satisfaction. As this was a given years ago, now Corporate wants you to pay for this, IMHO.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:06 PM on October 22, 2002

By buying the ticket, she gained a legally enforceable entitlement to fly on that plane.

Um... no. By buying a ticket, she gained a legally enforceable entitlement to a seat on a plane. She could have easily inquired as to the size of the seat she was buying (much as I would try on a pair of pants before slapping down my cash), but she didn't, choosing instead to simply ooze over onto someone else's seat.

Personally, I think anyone who is inconsiderate enough to buy one seat when they clearly need two should be forced to sit next to another seathog. Maybe then they'll realize they can't always just raise the armrest and hope for the best.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 1:10 PM on October 22, 2002

polo, that's absurd. The airline is offering a service--flying someone to their destination. That's what people buy and that's what they have the right to expect unless the airline specifies otherwise. If the airline can't accommodate a person due to their girth, it has to say so. It can't just sell them the ticket, force them into seats too small for them and then, and then deny all culpability when another passanger is injured.
posted by boltman at 1:27 PM on October 22, 2002

Er...how is the airline meant to know the passenger requires 2 seats?? Most tickets aren't booked in person...
posted by Orange Goblin at 1:32 PM on October 22, 2002

I, too, totally agree with Boltman. Also, I think it would be interesting to hear more about the injured party. She could be a stodgy old troublemaker, just out for the money. I mean, surely there was someone smaller on the plane who might have switched seats with her. And where was her husband in all this?

Being fat on an airplane sucks. Too bad people are more judgemental than empathetic. That obese woman probably wanted off the plane MUCH more than anybody else.
posted by sparky at 1:34 PM on October 22, 2002

She could have easily inquired as to the size of the seat she was buying (much as I would try on a pair of pants before slapping down my cash), but she didn't, choosing instead to simply ooze over onto someone else's seat.

Remember, most obese people have a VERY warped body image... the airline should have broached the subject before even letting her board. Besides, there's really no way to know how the seat might accomodate you unless you actually sit in it. I doubt many people buy clothes without trying them on, based on measurements alone -- measurements don't tell the whole story. If they did, there'd be no need for tailors.

clamb - great idea about the seating section. I'd gladly pay more to avoid the embarassment of being treated like a sub-human. I usually fly first class or stay home. It's not worth the all-out harassment.
posted by sparky at 1:49 PM on October 22, 2002

a "tall section" and a "broad section" and a "regular" might be just the ticket.
posted by dabitch at 1:53 PM on October 22, 2002

Oops - this source quotes it as $39,000 -- and the obese woman was American.

Also, a quote: "We are liable for a pay-out if anything happens to anyone on our plane, whether (or not) it is caused by another passenger."
posted by sparky at 1:56 PM on October 22, 2002

Sorry boltman, but you're wrong. Check the small print next time you buy a plane ticket -- you're buying a "seat", not a "trip". So guess what? If you can't fit into the seat you bought, you'd better buy another one.

I think the really absurd thing is the idea that she wouldn't have realized that she would need a little extra wiggle room. Airplane seats are a little cramped, but you don't start spilling over into your neighbour's seat unless you're way past husky. She should have realized she was fat and made her travel plans accordingly. It's called "taking responsibility for your own actions."
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 2:21 PM on October 22, 2002

As the airlines can have us find fault with each other instead of themselves we will loose customer satisfaction.

If this 6'4" customer was a little looser, he'd be much more satisfied.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 2:40 PM on October 22, 2002

Nice try, polo. On the back of the airline tickets I have here in front of me (american airlines) the terms on the back refer to the "contract of carriage", the "air transportation to be provided" and the "serivces other than air travel" that I may have purchased. All of which suggest a notion of air travel a service rather than a rental of a particular space on a plane.

Also, we all know that the airline is free to put you in any seat it wants (unless you have specifically contracted for first class seats) and even put you on a different plane altogeter if it overbooks the flight. All this militates against the view that you are contracting for a specific seat.

I might buy the argument that buying an airline ticket in absense of any explicit contractual terms to the contrary gives you a legally enforceable expectation of a minimally tolerable place to sit when you take your trip. But that hardly supports your position. If anything that exposes the airline to even more liability since in this case they failed to provide such a place to sit for either passenger.

I'm not denying that the airline could make overweight people buy two seats if they so decided or even keep them off the plane altogether. But they can't do so unless they make specific provisions in the terms and conditions that the passangers agree to when they buy the ticket. Otherwise, it's breach of contract, plain and simple.
posted by boltman at 3:06 PM on October 22, 2002

For more on the precise details of this case, try the bbc's report. The larger passenger had booked two seats on her flight in to London, but only got one on the flight back, presumably because the flight was full. See also: the age.

According to a report I skim-read in the Daily Mail today (which annoyingly doesn't have a good online service), the larger passenger was 23 stone (i.e. 322lbs) and the 'crushed' passenger was at one point unable to fasten her own seatbelt as the buckle was trapped under her (and the turbulence meant she was pushed down into it, causing some of the injuries she claimed for). I wish I had an online source to point to for that...

Sparky asked whether "surely there was someone smaller on the plane who might have switched seats with her"?. Given that, at 160lbs (and 5'10"), I find the seats snug, just how tiny would a person have to be to have fitted in next to someone twice my size? By all accounts, neither of the passengers in question were happy with the situation.

Perhaps the airlines should read this?
posted by anyanka at 4:54 PM on October 22, 2002

I mean, surely there was someone smaller on the plane who might have switched seats with her.

Surely not.


The larger passenger had booked two seats...

Had booked, or had paid for? And if only booked, I question why someone who requires two seating spaces should be allowed to fly for half the price of two people in two spaces.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:14 PM on October 22, 2002

Well, I don't see why children under two get to travel on their parents' laps without paying anything, or in their own seats for half price. Someone would have to be spilling into a good deal of my seat before I'd prefer sitting next to a parent with a baby.
posted by transona5 at 8:14 PM on October 22, 2002

I question why someone who requires two seating spaces should be allowed to fly for half the price of two people in two spaces.

Do you also find it unfair that business travelers often pay twice as much as vacationers for tickets on the same flight? Or that the price of a ticket changes based on when you buy it (and not always to the advantage of those buying early)? Or that students often get deep discounts?

In reality, airline ticket pricing has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with finding ways to segment the air traveler market and charging each segment according to their willingness to pay. If obese people generally won't pay more for an extra seat but won't fly without one, then it's perfectly logical for an airline to allow them to reserve one for free on a flight that is underbooked anyway. On an overbooked flight, the economics obviously change a little, but that still doesn't mean that an airline would maximize its revenue by making obese people pay double for two seats.

Same analysis goes for pricing for infants and small children. Airlines make more money giving children a deep discount than if they were to charge full price by encouraging families to fly to see their relatives instead of piling into the minivan.
posted by boltman at 8:23 PM on October 22, 2002

Here's my .02c on the issue. Airlines should provide different seat sizes (sizes, not classes) and price them accordingly. You then buy the seat that fits you and hopefully doesn't impinge on the comfort of the person next to you. If you're small, buy a small, if you need something larger buy that. If you take up more space, you'll get charged accordingly. Fair enough. It's not discrimination in my book, it's logical. However if you're large and then decide to squeeze yourself into a small seat thereby causing injury, pain, whatever to your travelmate next to you whilst being provided with an alternative and choosing not to use it, the onus and the liability is yours if your travelmate suffers injury as a result of your poor choice. Not the airline.

I can't see it happening but I believe people have the right to choose their seat size. It just makes sense. It doesn't have to be vastly more expensive but it should cost a little more, otherwise smaller people who just want to spread out will take them from people who actually need it. Thoughts?
posted by Jubey at 9:22 PM on October 22, 2002

I think the economics would outweigh other factors, Jubey. Those who could afford it would buy big, and those who could not afford it would buy the smallest they were allowed. The airlines would loose money on that, I think.

I understand why airlines cram so many in, what I don't understand is why they do so by simply packing in more seats in straight rows with less space between them. There are design solutions here, solutions that could allow for more passengers and increase individual seating room at the same time. Offsetting seats is a start. Raising alternate rows six to ten inches would solve the legroom problem. There are solutions, but no one is implementing them.

Boltman, wonderful posts.
posted by Nothing at 11:33 PM on October 22, 2002

Nothing, you're saying that economies with this concept outweigh other factors. But they're already doing this, it's just called first class and business class. Airlines have proven by this that there is a market for different levels of service already and those who can't afford it/don't want it fly economy. I don't see how selling according to seat size alone is any different.
posted by Jubey at 12:04 AM on October 23, 2002

If I chose to grow a 20 foot afro, would I not be responsible for problems caused in cinemas? It is up to the obese individual to ensure that their actions do not cause grief to others. I'd like to know who would have sued who if there had been two morbidly obese passengers sitting next to eachother.
posted by tripitaka at 4:35 AM on October 23, 2002

Sparky asked whether "surely there was someone smaller on the plane who might have switched seats with her"?. Given that, at 160lbs (and 5'10"), I find the seats snug, just how tiny would a person have to be to have fitted in next to someone twice my size?

By smaller, I meant a little kid. The airline could have even offered money back to the kid willing to sit there. Although, obviously people just aren't kind to eachother in too many cases, particularly fat people. God forbid anyone think of helping her to solve the situation as best as possible. I think it's a sad reflection on humanity that we can't be more empathetic.
posted by sparky at 7:31 AM on October 23, 2002

God forbid anyone think of helping her to solve the situation as best as possible.

Okay, here's some helpful advice: eat less and exercise.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 10:51 AM on October 23, 2002

boltman: but that was my point. The airline is going to maximize its profits. They'll let an extremely fat person take two seats if the flight is underbooked, no problem: doesn't cost them anything to do so. But when the flight is full, it is reasonable to expect those who need two seats to pay for two seats.

Which brings it back to the question: did she book two seats, or did she pay for two seats? If she paid, the airline should be held extremely accountable for having shafted her, 'cause she obviously ended up with only one seat and a refund on the other.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:20 PM on October 23, 2002