A British Airways stewardess who shattered her knee after she was flung into the air during severe turbulence has lost her bid for over £72,000 in damages.
Long-term employee Laura Lanigan was onboard a BA Boeing 777 bound for Mumbai when the plane suffered a ‘violent drop’ as it was preparing to land in June 2019.
The 56-year-old, from Richmond in west London, was thrown into the air by the ‘sudden and severe’ bout of turbulence, fracturing her knee and dislocating her shoulder. She was also struck by an unsecured drinks canister.
Mrs Lanigan’s injuries were so severe that she was left unable to get back up and had to be taken off the plane via a wheelchair.
The veteran stewardess took the airline to court seeking £72,500 compensation on the basis that the accident was caused by the pilot steering too close to a storm cloud as he came in to land.
However, the case was thrown out by Judge David Saunders, who ruled that there had been no storm cloud and that the injuries were the result of nothing more than an accident.
‘In my view, looking at this overall, it was a very unfortunate, but unexpected and not reasonably foreseeable, accident,’ he told Central London County Court.
The court heard that Mrs Lanigan’s jet was coming to the end of a nine-hour journey from London Heathrow to Mumbai when she suffered her injury.
Laura Lanigan (pictured outside Central London County Court) was onboard a BA Boeing 777 bound for Mumbai when the plan suffered a ‘violent drop’ in June 2019
Her lawyers said there had been ‘mild to moderate’ turbulence towards the end of the flight and that the passenger seat belt warning signs had been turned on.
But shortly before the plane was due to land, it suffered a more extreme jolt, sending her flying into the air and crashing back down.
Giving evidence, Mrs Lanigan told the judge that the flight had been too ‘bumpy’ to serve hot drinks to passengers with the breakfast service.
However, the severe movement which caused her injury was ‘unexpected,’ she said.
As the plane continued to experience turbulence as it came to land, Mrs Lanigan was then unable to get to a seat, she claimed, telling the judge: ‘I remember trying to move. It felt like forever.’
She was eventually taken off the plane in a wheelchair.
Her barrister, Sinclair Cramsie, claimed that the accident was the fault of the 777’s pilot in not identifying and steering clear of a cumulonimbus storm cloud.
He said the plane was within 20 miles of the cloud and the pilot should have either diverted further away from it or told the cabin crew to sit down and belt up.
Mr Cramsie said: ‘We say that the path that was being taken was sufficiently proximate to the cumulonimbus cloud that it was within the danger zone.
‘The turbulence was described by Mrs Lanigan as the worst turbulence that she had experienced in circa 30 years flying.’
However, BA barrister Peter Savory denied that there had been storm clouds close to the plane, pointing out that two flight officers gave evidence to say they had seen nothing from the cockpit.
Instead, an operating officer on the flight deck had reported only ‘fluffy white clouds’ – called cumulus clouds by weather experts – in the sky beside the plane.
‘Whatever they saw, the pilots say it wasn’t a cumulonimbus,’ he said.
‘In using the weather radar on the aircraft, they didn’t see anything indicative of a cumulonimbus.
‘We say this was a single bump of turbulence. It was nothing more.’
Mrs Lanigan (pictured in 2023) worked as a stewardess for British Airways for over 30 years. She took the airline to court this week claiming £72,500 compensation on the basis that the accident was caused by the pilot steering too close to a storm cloud
Giving judgment, Judge Saunders said expert meteorological evidence did partially back Mrs Lanigan’s case in showing that there had been high turbulence in the area.
However, he said it was notable that the weather expert had deferred to the highly-experienced flight crew’s evidence of what had actually been visible out of the cockpit.
‘Having considered the evidence, I am persuaded that, with their experience, they would have been able to distinguish between cumulonimbus and cumulus clouds,’ he said.
‘I form the view that the pilots dealt with this situation entirely professionally and, even accepting all human beings can make mistakes, I find their evidence to be clear and consistent, and I have no reason to disbelieve it.’
He added that the pilots had the safety of the plane and passengers to think about, but also ‘would have had their own safety in mind when in control of the plane’.
‘I therefore find there were no cumulonimbus clouds within the vicinity.
‘The burden is on the claimant and in these circumstances she has not proved her case and there is no breach of duty.’
Mrs Lanigan’s damages claim was dismissed.