Wright v. United Airlines, Inc.

Nature of the Order

The court issued proposed preliminary, during-trial, and final jury instructions. The court stated that the instructions were subject to modification based on the evidence and developments at trial. Objections were due by 12:00 noon on July 22, 2021.

Agreed Liability and Issues for Trial

The proposed instructions stated that the parties agreed that Joy Wright was injured when another passenger’s luggage fell from an overhead storage bin on a United Airlines flight. They also stated that United was liable for damages caused by the accident and that negligence was not an issue. The jury was therefore to decide the extent of Wright’s injuries and the amount of damages, if any, to award.

The proposed stipulations of fact stated that Wright had purchased a round-trip ticket to Johannesburg, South Africa, consisting of four United flights; that the accident occurred during the flight from San Francisco International Airport to Washington Dulles International Airport; that the bag struck the right side of her face, right shoulder, and arm; that United personnel provided ice, aspirin, and an offer of medical assistance after landing; that Dr. Garg performed arthroscopic surgery on Wright’s right rotator cuff on January 8, 2020; and that Wright fell onto her right side in a residence parking garage on February 14, 2020.

Proposed Jury Instructions

The instructions told jurors to decide the facts from the admitted evidence and apply the law given by the court. They addressed the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning proof that makes a claim more likely true than not; what is and is not evidence; evidence admitted for a limited purpose; direct and circumstantial evidence; objections; witness credibility; expert opinions; jury conduct; deliberations; communications with the court; and returning a unanimous verdict.

The court independently proposed an instruction on implicit or unconscious bias. It told jurors to examine assumptions and first impressions, consider whether they would evaluate the parties and evidence differently if people had different backgrounds, listen to different perspectives, and avoid decisions based on stereotypes, prejudice, sympathy, or personal reactions.

Damages and Mitigation

The proposed damages instruction placed on Wright the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. It described possible noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, anxiety, and humiliation. It also described possible economic damages, including past and future medical expenses and past and future lost earnings. Any award was required to be based on evidence rather than speculation.

The proposed mitigation instruction stated that Wright had a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate, or reduce, her damages. It placed on United the burden of proving both that Wright failed to use reasonable efforts and the amount by which damages would have been reduced.

Wright objected that United had waived this defense by failing to raise mitigation of damages as an affirmative defense in its answer. The court noted that the answer listed other defenses but not mitigation. It then discussed Ninth Circuit authority stating that a defense omitted from an answer may nevertheless be raised when doing so does not unfairly surprise or prejudice the opposing party, including when the issue appears in pretrial filings or the pretrial order. The court said United planned to present evidence that Wright’s injuries were worsened by stopping use of a sling about a week after surgery, contrary to her physical therapist’s recommendations. The court also noted that Wright had received notice of the expert’s position, had participated in the expert’s deposition, and had an opportunity to prepare for the testimony. The proposed instruction therefore included the mitigation issue.

Disposition and Limits of the Order

The order approved proposed instructions for use subject to later modifications and stated, “IT IS SO ORDERED.” It did not report a jury verdict, decide the amount of damages, or enter a final judgment. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on July 19, 2021.