Seven Relatives Sue After Japan Airlines Plane Hits Delta Jet At 2.3 mph — Report Said No One Was Hurt

A new lawsuit makes has a family of seven passengers the only ones claiming injuries from a low speed Seattle airport collision between two planes that was officially classified as injury-free. The legal paradox here is that Delta may face liability as the airline they were flying, even though the Japan Airlines plane caused the accident. A new federal lawsuit by Renardo Robertson makes him the seventh family member onboard Delta flight 1921 from Seattle to Puerto Vallarta claiming an injury stemming from when the right wing of a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 sliced into the tail of his Boeing 737. He alleges that the impact pushed and twisted the Delta aircraft, causing his body to strike a console and injuring his lower back, with symptoms extending down a leg. And his lawsuit says he has undergone “significant and invasive medical care,” without identifying the procedure, its timing or the diagnosis requiring it. His wife, daughter, son-in-law, two granddaughters and brother-in-law have already pursued claims from the same collision. Everyone in this extended family traveling party appears to be claiming an injury I can find no lawsuit from anyone else on the flight And if they all do have genuine medical issues, it’s unclear how this collision at a speed of 2.3 miles per hour caused them. What Actually Happened Between The Two Aircraft On February 5, 2025, Delta flight 1921 pushed back from gate A11 with passengers headed to Puerto Vallarta. It stopped near the south deicing pad, behind an Airbus A220, with its parking brake set. Japan Airlines flight 68 had just arrived from Tokyo Narita. Its pilots received several routing changes from airport ramp control because the area was congested. The ramp was slippery from snow and deicing fluid, with poorly defined holding points and no marshal guiding the aircraft. As the JAL 787 passed behind the Delta 737, its captain moved slightly left to create space. He and the first officer thought the right wingtip was clear, but it wasn’t. The 787’s right wing struck the Delta jet’s vertical stabilizer at a taxi speed of about two knots, or 2.3 miles per hour. The NTSB ultimately determined that the JAL flight crew failed to maintain adequate clearance. Delta’s first officer had seen the wing approaching and warned the captain, but the Delta aircraft could not move because of deicing vehicles ahead and the absence of a marshal. Delta’s tail sustained substantial damage. The JAL wingtip sustained minor damage. The final accident report found no injuries among Delta’s 144 passengers and six crew members or JAL’s 172 passengers and 13 crew members. That doesn’t mean there aren’t passengers that could have developed pain later… So, we were sitting on the tarmac at SeaTac and another plane ran into us, just casually sliced into our tail. Very scary. #Seattle pic.twitter.com/MrhQRi8Yvb — jackie (@jacqpatton) February 5, 2025 View from passenger of Japan Airlines plane striking parked Delta plane by u/MidsummerMidnight in aviation Incident in SEA byu/Terrible_Plum1300 indelta Seven Related Plaintiffs—And Apparently Nobody Else The first lawsuit was filed just over a month after the collision by Renardo’s daughter Danielle Robertson, her husband Vainqueur Niyotwagira and their two young daughters. A second complaint followed from Renardo’s wife Donna Robertson and Donna’s brother and legal ward Cary Baylis. Donna allegedly struck her knee against the seat ahead, experienced spasms and remained aboard awaiting medical assistance. She had a history of back surgery and a wheelchair notation on her reservation. Baylis is nonverbal and autistic. His claimed injuries were inferred from his favoring his shoulder, back and leg. It’s possible that this family was injured and nobody else. People who travel together frequently retain lawyers together. Relatives tell one another about symptoms and legal rights. They may have been seated in the same portion of the aircraft. Some may have been unbelted, holding a child or positioned differently from most passengers. A preexisting condition can also make one person more susceptible to injury than another. It still seems extraordinary. Delta May Be Liable Even Though They Didn’t Cause It This was international trip from the U.S. to Mexico, so the Montreal Convention governs Delta’s liability, which means a passenger has to prove: an accident occurred aboard the aircraft the passenger suffered bodily injury the accident caused that injury compensable damages resulted The accident occurred – a 787 unexpectedly cutting into a 737’s tail. That qualifies as an ‘unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger’. The question is whether there was a real physical injury, whether that injury was caused by the accident, and whether that resulted in a specific amount of loss. For the first “151,880 Special Drawing Rights” (about $207,000 at current exchange rates) it doesn’t matter whether Delta can be blamed for the incident. Above that first tier, proving negilgence would matter. Clearly there’s no negligence here: Its aircraft was stationary with the parking brake set. It was properly waiting for deicing guidance, and traffic ahead prevented it from escaping. The NTSB blames the JAL crew’s mistake. JAL Caused The Collision, But Doesn’t Face Montreal Convention Liability JAL pilots saw the Delta aircraft, discussed whether the wing would clear it and were wrong. But since they weren’t transporting the passenger, they’re not the responsible carrier for Montreal Convention purposes. The Montreal Convention Treaty claim is against Delta, the airline that didn’t cause the collision. So claims against JAL, which actually caused the accident, face a higher burden of proving negligence – proving a duty, breach, causation and damages. Also somewhat ironic is that while the NTSB’s accident report places blame clearly on JAL’s failure to maintain clearance, federal law doesn’t allow the accident report to be introduced in a civil damages trial. So it’s not even a defense for Delta! Both sides can use the evidence and testimony contained in the report, but not the government’s probable cause conclusion. Topics on this page