I spent the past few days researching this topic with little success. After using Google search terms, "exit seat liability" "am I liable for sitting in an exit row," " passenger liability," and many others, I came up with no laws, statutes, or rules governing liability for sitting in an exit row.
Next, I went to each airlines Contract of Carriage to see if they had anything about exit row liability. After checking, United's here, US Airways' here, Southwest's here, Alaskan's here and Delta's here, I learned that each does not mention exit row liability and liability overall was talked about little.
Finally, I went to the FAA rules and they were silent on liability as well. However, I did learn that FAA does not require the airlines to have passengers in exit row seats; throwing out the argument that charging for those seats is a safety hazard.
I am not a lawyer and have no formal training with law. If someone who is a lawyer or even a reader finds something about this topic, email me. I will immediately add an update this post.
The four scenarios I laid out are just the tip of the iceberg. One could probably come up with many other scenarios that could result in someone suing you. In our litigious society, one can almost guarantee a lawsuit being file for actions that occur trying to exit a plane after an accident.
One of the reasons why I think there are no laws or rules regarding liability in the exit row is that Congress is always late the party. They tend to only take major action after something big occurs. Oil Spill...tighten drilling regulations. Wall Street Crash... financial reform. In my modern history, I can not remember a plane crash, except the Miracle on the Hudson, where survivors had to leave a plane immediately to save their lives. The lack of accident is probably the driving force behind the lack of laws and rules limiting or eliminating someone's liability for sitting in the exit row seat.
During the past week, I spoke to a handful of my friends about this question swirling in my head. Surprising each of them suggested me looking at Good Samaritan Laws. I had the same inclination. The problem with Good Samaritan Laws is that they tend to be state based. Worse, not all states provide Good Samaritan protection to laypersons, only first responders or those who are trained in first aid. Also, Good Samartian provisions do not apply to all situations. Many laws require that the person you are helping to be in imminent danger. In the absence of imminent danger, your actions might be deemed as reckless. The example most often cited is a motor vehicle collision occurs, but there is no fire, no immediate life threaten injuries and no danger of further collisions. If someone, with good intentions, causes injury by pulling the victims or victims from the wreckage, the court has ruled, in some instances, that the Good Samaritan laws do not apply, because of the lack of immediate danger. Imagine a plane crash, there is no fire, smoke or visible danger and you help an old women out the emergency window and she breaks a hip, leg etc. one could see the courts saying that the Good Samaritan law does not apply.
Making things even more complicated is that debate of which state's Good Samaritan law should apply. Some believe its the state/country where the plane is registered; others believe if the plane is on the ground then its the jurisdiction where the action occurred. The Good Samaritan law has not been used often in airline related instance and when it has it typically a doctor or EMT helping out with a sick passenger aboard the plane. Do we really want people taking time to research the state's laws before helping people out of a plane crash? Sometimes there is little time to process information and instincts take over...I would rather have those instincts kick in rather than let the thought process
Many of you might have reached this point and may be fuming, "you had us read your whole post and you have no real answer." Yes, I am sorry to those who feel this way, but I am bothered that their is no clear answer to this question. I feel that you as a consumer should be notified of your liability before agreeing to it. When we ride our favorite roller coasters, there are sign laying out the danger to you. Most wet floors have signs to warn you of their danger. However, no warning is given to you about the liability that you may inccur for sitting in an exit row seat?
During my research, I did stumble upon a scholarly article by Wendy Gerwick, "Taking Exit Row Seriously," who argues that those who sit in the exit row should be held liable. You will need a scholarly journal database log in to read it, but its excellent. Her argument is based upon the notion that if people sitting in the exit row are held liable than those who are truly able and willing to help in an emergency will sit there. I don't disagree with her logic. We need to discourage those unable to help in an emergency from sitting in the exit rows. My fear is that the opposite will happen; no one will sit in there due to the threat of being sued. I would rather have a 50/50 shot that the person sitting in the exit row can open the exit door than have no one sit in the row and rely on some having to get to the door quickly.
Yes, I love the extra leg room that sitting in the exit row affords:
But without the reassurance that I won't be held liable, I won't be sitting there anytime soon. Yes, I know my loss is others gains, but I am gonna play on the safe side.
As a reminder, if I missed something, please please please let me know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter @doit4thepoints!
Have a question for us? E-mail us at chris@doitforthepoints.com or jd@doitforthepoints.com
