Galvan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) The motions for summary judgment by Def Delta Air Lines, Inc., 33 and Def GoJet Airlines, LLC 35 , are GRANTED, and Plf's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2) A separate judgment shall enter concurrently herewith. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 6/9/2015.(ECO)cc: COR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-222 (WOB-CJS)
CRISIAN GALVAN

PLAINTIFF

VS.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DELTA AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

I. Introduction
In

this

premises

liability

action,

Plaintiff

Crisian

Galvan

alleges that Defendants Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and GoJet
Airlines, LLC (“GoJet”) negligently maintained a jetbridge, causing
Plaintiff

to

fall

Cincinnati/Northern

and

suffer

Kentucky

bodily

injuries

International

while

Airport

deplaning

(“CVG”).

at

This

matter is before the Court on motions for summary judgment by Delta
(Doc. 33) and GoJet (Doc. 35).

The Court has concluded that both

defendants are entitled summary judgment and announced this decision
at oral argument held on June 1, 2015.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
On November 24, 2012, Galvan and her then-six-year-old daughter
flew from St. Louis to CVG on a Delta flight operated by GoJet under
the name “Delta Connection.”

Doc. 35-5, Galvan Dep., at 26.

After

the plane landed at CVG and pulled up to Gate B-10, Galvan and her
daughter exited the aircraft and waited on the jetbridge to pick up
their two roller-style suitcases that were gate-checked in St. Louis.
Id.

at

35,

37.

After

retrieving

the

suitcases,

Galvan

daughter began walking up the jetbridge toward the terminal.

and

her

Id. at

45.

Less than halfway up the jetbridge, Galvan tripped and fell on

her left side.

Id. at 46, 52-53.

Although she alleged in her complaint that a metal “protrusion”
caused the fall, she testified in her deposition that she stepped on
an “uneven” piece of metal, “like a piece of metal that is part of the
ramp itself; it’s on the floor.”1

Id. at 45–46.

Galvan testified that

she “felt” the metal piece but did not look back to see exactly what
had caused her fall.

Id. at 52-53.

When shown a photograph of the

jetbridge, Galvan testified that she tripped over one of the metal
strips that moderate changes in height on the jetbridge.2
54.

Id. at 50-

When asked whether the metal strips were affixed to the walkway

on the day of the accident, Galvan testified that they were not “just
laying [sic] loose.”

Id. at 101.

was “bad luck” that she fell.

Initially, Galvan testified that it

Id. at 46.

After the fall, Galvan got up without assistance, walked the
remainder of the jetbridge, went to the restroom, and proceeded to
the gate where she was to board her connecting flight.

Id. at 58-59.

Galvan testified that she was in pain and requested Tylenol from a
Delta employee at her connecting gate.

Id. at 60.

The employee then

1

Galvan also testified that she had flown previously and had “seen [similar
metal strips] on other ramps.” Doc. 35-5, Galvan Dep., at 46; accord id. at
26–27.
2

The jetbridge is comprised of three telescoping tunnels that extend and
retract so that the jetbridge can service varying types of aircraft.
See
Doc. 35-6 at 34-35. Because each “tunnel” fits inside the one ahead of it,
there is a change in elevation of approximately six inches at the points of
transition between tunnels. Id. at 35–36. Metal strips or plates span this
transition to smooth the walkway.
See id. at 36; Doc. 35-8, Photograph of
Jetbridge. The strips are silver, in contrast to the carpet which is black
or dark colored. Doc. 35-8, Photograph of Jetbridge.

2

contacted security and the police; Galvan was later transported to the
hospital by ambulance.

Id. at 59.

At the emergency room, Galvan was

prescribed pain medicine and released.

Id. at 63.

Galvan’s pain

continued after she returned home, prompting her to obtain additional
treatment

including

physical

eventually, two surgeries.

therapy,

chiropractic

Id. at 66-70, 84, 90.

care,

and,

She brought this

action in the Boone Circuit Court on November 25, 2013, Doc. 1-1,
Complaint.

Defendants

removed

the

case

to

this

Court

on

December 20, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
III. Analysis
A. Plaintiff’s Claim Against GoJet
GoJet argues that it is not liable to Galvan because it did not
“own, inspect, maintain, operate, use or control” the jetbridge where
Galvan fell.

Doc. 35-1, Memo. in Support of Def. GoJet’s Mot. for

Summ. J., at 1.

Delta admits that it owns, used, maintained, and

inspected the jetbridge where the incident occurred.

See Doc. 35-6,

Verberg Dep., at 18-19, 24-25, 28-30, 56-57, 63-64.

Plaintiff does

not dispute this fact.
Premises liability law implicates the duties owed by owners and
occupiers of premises to those who enter.
Premises Liability 3d § 36:1.

Louis A. Lehr, Jr., 2

Because GoJet did not own or occupy the

jetbridge, GoJet owed no duty to Galvan while she was walking up the
jetbridge, and her premises liability claim against GoJet fails as a
matter of law.

Thus, the Court concludes that GoJet is entitled to

summary judgment.
3

B. Plaintiff’s Claim Against Delta
To prevail on a negligence claim in Kentucky, a plaintiff must
prove the following elements: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the
plaintiff;
followed.

(2)

the

duty

was

breached;

and

(3)

consequent

injury

Shelton v. Ky. Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 906

(Ky. 2013).

A land possessor owes all those who enter the land a

general duty of reasonable care.

Id. at 908.

Land possessors are not

insurers of the safety of entrants to their land, but are “required to
maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.”

Id.

What

constitutes reasonable care depends on the status of the plaintiff as
an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.
“Kentucky

law

remains

steadfast”

in

See id. at 909 (explaining that
adhering

to

these

traditional

classifications).
An invitee is one who “enters upon the premises at the express or
implied invitation of the owner . . . in connection with the business
of the owner . . . .”

Id.

Galvan was an invitee because she came

upon Delta’s jetbridge as Delta’s customer.

Therefore, Delta owed her

a duty to “discover unreasonably dangerous conditions on the land and
either eliminate or warn of them.”

Id.

Whether Delta breached this duty is not a triable issue because
the record does not contain sufficient evidence from which to infer
that an “unreasonably dangerous condition” existed on the jetbridge.
Kentucky law defines an unreasonably dangerous condition as “one that
is ‘recognized by a reasonable person in similar circumstances as a
risk that should be avoided or minimized’ or one that is ‘in fact
4

recognized as such by the particular defendant.’”

Id. at 914 (quoting

Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 143, p. 335 (2001)).

Open-and-obvious

dangers, such as a “small pothole in the parking lot of a shopping
mall[,] steep stairs leading to a place of business[,] or perhaps even
a simple curb[,]” typically “may not create an unreasonable risk.”
Id.

Although

the

Kentucky

Supreme

Court,

in

recent

years,

has

narrowed the application of the open-and-obvious doctrine, see, e.g.,
id. at 910-17; Ky. River Med. Ctr. v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385, 389-93
(Ky. 2010), it has not eliminated the requirement that an unreasonable
risk must exist for a premises owner to be liable.

See Spears v.

Schneider, No. 2012-CA-65-MR, 2015 WL 2153310, at *4 (Ky. Ct. App. May
8, 2015) (“Absent an unreasonable risk, there is no breach.”)
Galvan testified that the “uneven” piece of metal over which she
tripped

was

the

leveling

plate

used

on

many

jetbridges.

She

acknowledges in her Response in Opposition that this metal strip is
there to “create a smooth transition.”
at 5.

Doc. 38, Pl.’s Memo. in Opp.,

Although she argues that the plate “could” come loose, which

could create a trip hazard, she testified that at the time of the
incident, the metal strip was not loose.

The record reflects that the

strips were a contrasting color to the jetbridge carpet, see Doc. 358,

Photograph

of

Jetbridge,

such

that

any

person

paying

minimal

attention could identify the strips and safely step over them if he or
she so desired.
Plaintiff

offered

no

expert

evidence

that

the

jetbridge

defective in design or atypical of other similar structures.
5

was
Such

structures are necessary to facilitate passengers boarding and leaving
aircraft at airport terminal gates.
Because the record contains no evidence that the metal strip was
defective or in any state of disrepair, nor evidence that any other
trip hazard existed on the jetbridge at the time of Galvan’s fall, the
Court concludes that the jetbridge presented no unreasonable risk.
Accordingly, Delta is entitled to summary judgment.
IV. Conclusion
Therefore, having heard from the parties and reviewed the record,
and the Court being sufficiently advised,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)

The motions for summary judgment by Defendant Delta Air
Lines, Inc. (Doc. 33) and Defendant GoJet Airlines, LLC
(Doc.

35)

be,

and

hereby

are,

GRANTED,

and

Plaintiff’s

claims, be and hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
(2)

A separate judgment shall enter concurrently herewith.

This 9th day of June, 2015.

6