British Airways flight attendant injured in turbulence loses £72,500 compensation bid

A British Airways flight attendant badly injured when she was flung in the air by turbulence has lost her £72,500 court claim after a judge cleared the pilot of flying "in the danger zone" near a storm.

Laura Lanigan, 56, was left in agony after the BA Boeing 777 she was crewing suffered a "violent drop" while in the sky above Mumbai, India, in June 2019.

The veteran flight attendant, of Richmond, Surrey, was in the plane's galley as it prepared for landing when it suffered a "sudden and severe" bout of turbulence, rising and dropping quickly.

She was hurled into the air and crashed back to the floor, fracturing her knee and dislocating her shoulder, with an unsecured drinks canister then falling on top of her.

This week, Mrs Lanigan took BA to court, claiming £72,500 compensation on the basis that the accident was caused by the pilot steering too close to a storm cloud.

But her case was thrown out when Judge David Saunders 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 said in his judgment.

During the trial at Central London County Court, the judge heard Mrs Lanigan's jet was coming to the end of a nine-hour journey from London Heathrow to Mumbai when she suffered her injury.

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 in the galley and crashing back down.

open image in gallery

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.

Landing heavily, she twisted her left knee, having already hit her shoulder on galley furniture, with an unsecured water canister then falling on her afterwards.

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.

"We say that the path that was being taken was sufficiently proximate to the cumulonimbus cloud that it was within the danger zone," he argued.

"The turbulence was described by Mrs Lanigan as the worst turbulence that she had experienced in circa 30 years flying."

open image in gallery

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."

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."

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," he added.

"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.