Negligence – Delta Airlines sued for dropping wheelchair passenger

Where a passenger alleged he was dropped while being transferred from his wheelchair to his seat on a Delta international flight, he plausibly stated a claim under the Montreal Convention. His Virginia negligence, gross negligence and negligent hiring claims, however, were preempted by the same statute.

Background

Taylor Boone sued Delta Air Lines Inc., alleging that he was injured while boarding a Delta flight. Delta has moved to dismiss Boone’s amended complaint and Boone has moved to file another amended complaint.

Claim splitting

Delta asks the court to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for violation of the claim-splitting doctrine, because the plaintiff had two lawsuits, both arising from the same incident, pending at the same time. The court rejects Delta’s argument.

The purpose of the claim-splitting doctrine is to protect defendants from having to defend against multiple lawsuits arising out of the same incident. Here, Delta is not subjected to defending against multiple actions based on the same transaction because the plaintiff voluntarily requested a nonsuit in his first lawsuit.

Further, the general district court had not previously denied a motion or request for relief from the plaintiff, such that Delta is now relitigating issues that had been previously decided. Additionally, it is apparent that the plaintiff filed the Newport News case in anticipation of requesting a nonsuit at the hearing in Virginia Beach the next day – not for the purpose of bringing multiple lawsuits against Delta based on the same incident.

Montreal Convention

The Montreal Convention provides that a “carrier is liable for damage sustained in the cause of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” Further, the Montreal Convention applies to all international carriage, which includes any carriage that has a place of departure and a place of destination that are situated in two different countries.

Here, the plaintiff contends that Delta injured him in the course of an international flight, in violation of the Montreal Convention. Delta argues that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief because he does not allege the specific flight on which the injury occurred. The court disagrees. The plaintiff alleged the date of the flight, and the portion of the trip. The plaintiff also provided the flight number upon which the accident took place.

Preemption

The plaintiff brings three claims under Virginia common law: negligence, gross negligence and negligent hiring. Each of these claims arise out of the same alleged injury: that the plaintiff was dropped on a Delta flight while being transferred from his wheelchair to his seat on the aircraft. Delta argues next argues that each of these claims are preempted by the Montreal Convention and should be dismissed. The court agrees.

Shotgun pleading

Delta also argues, again for the first time in its reply brief, that the amended complaint is a classic example of shotgun pleading. Addressing first the argument that the plaintiff did not indicate which allegations support which claims, the court finds this argument unconvincing. The complaint is clear that all claims arise out of the same wrongful conduct, namely, that the plaintiff was injured on board a Delta flight.

The court also declines to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff has asserted multiple claims against multiple defendants. The plaintiff has made it clear that the claims are against Delta, or Delta’s agents.

Amend

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 30, 2025. Upon realizing that the amended complaint contained the name of the wrong court in the case caption, the plaintiff filed a corrected amended complaint later that same day. The only difference between the two documents is a change to the caption. The court finds it prudent to grant the plaintiff’s motion to amend and will accept it as the operative complaint.

Delta’s motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion to amend granted.

Boone v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-123, April 1, 2026. EDVA at Newport News (Walker). VLW 026-3-165. 15 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-165
Virginia Lawyers Weekly