A passenger who fell down aircraft steps while getting off a plane at Larnaca airport has lost his appeal against Swissport Cyprus Ltd, after the Court of Appeal ruled on September 14 that he had not proven negligence by the company.
The court said no reliable evidence linked the fall to any act or omission by Swissport, which had been servicing the aircraft and had positioned the steps. Judges D. Kitsios, M.G. Pikis and M. Drousiotis dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s ruling.
The judges noted that the lower court had found the passenger not credible, while Swissport’s witness, a health and safety officer, had been found credible. Because no specific ground of appeal challenged that finding, it stood.
The two sides had agreed in the lower court on damages of 40,000 euros, including interest, should Swissport be found fully liable. That left the courts to decide only whether the company was responsible for the fall.
The claim
The passenger argued that the necessary safety measures had not been taken, that the steps were slippery, that the weather was bad and that the lighting was inadequate. He also relied on res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine under which, in certain conditions, the circumstances of an accident can themselves point to negligence.
The lower court dismissed his claim, finding he had not proved that Swissport breached its duty of care towards him. On appeal, he argued that his evidence had essentially gone unchallenged and that the lower court had failed to take into account the company’s particular responsibility for passengers getting off aircraft safely.
The ruling
The lower court found it had not been established what exactly caused the fall. Nor had it been shown that the steps were wet, had water on them or lacked anti-slip material.
It accepted evidence that the steps had built-in lighting, handrails along their full length, an anti-slip surface on every step and anti-slip tape along the edges. It also found that, under normal practice, the operator of the steps checks the lights and looks for foreign objects before positioning them against the aircraft. No fault had been reported with these steps, and the accepted evidence was that they were in good condition.
The Court of Appeal found no acceptable evidence of any danger on the steps connected to the fall. It rejected the argument that Swissport had breached its duty of care, saying the lower court had applied the case law correctly. It also dismissed a second ground of appeal, that Swissport should be treated as the owner or occupier of the aircraft. The court noted that, on the findings, the company’s role in servicing the aircraft and positioning the steps gave it a duty of care towards the passengers using them, but that the key question was the extent of that duty and whether it had been breached. It agreed with the lower court that there was no acceptable evidence that the company had failed to take reasonable measures or ignored a risk it knew or should have known about.
The court ruled that res ipsa loquitur could not apply. It said the passenger had tried to prove specific negligent circumstances, and no prima facie case of negligence against the company had been established, so the burden of proof did not shift to the other side.
It also considered an English case involving a fall from aircraft steps, but found the facts different, since frozen snow had been found on the steps in that case.
The court ordered the passenger to pay Swissport 2,400 euros in costs, plus VAT if applicable.
