Caribbean Airlines Limited has tried to prevent people from suing for personal injuries arising from the crash landing of Caribbean Airlines Flight BW 523 in Guyana three years ago, but was recently denied by a US district court judge in Brooklyn, New York, and three more plaintiffs are suing.
In a multi-district litigation, numerous plaintiffs brought suit against defendant Caribbean Airlines Limited for personal injuries arising from the crash landing of Caribbean Airlines Flight BW 523 in Guyana on July 30, 2011. Plaintiffs were traveling from Florida to Georgetown, and while landing in Georgetown, Flight BW 523 overshot the runway, and plaintiffs sustained personal injuries.
Caribbean Airlines brought a motion “to dismiss” in several of the cases, asserting that the Warsaw Convention governed those plaintiffs’ claims and that the treaty’s forum provision deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 16, 2014, the court issued an “Opinion and Order” holding that the Warsaw Convention does not govern these claims because Guyana is not a party to the Convention. Accordingly, the court denied Caribbean Airline’s motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints.
The caption of the opinion and order stated that it applied to the claims of plaintiffs Rajendra Persaud, 64, and Prampatie Persaud, 64, from Florida; and Shanti Persaud, 34, and her two children, ages 10 and 7, from Guyana. Both plaintiffs Rajendra and Prampatie Persaud have since settled their claims against Caribbean Airlines. The claims of Shanti Persaud and her two children, however, remain active.
Caribbean Airlines had requested that the opinion and order be amended to apply as well to three similarly situated plaintiffs Abdool Latif, Maylene Persaud and Ernest Scott, whose claims remain active.
At a conference before Magistrate Judge Joan M Azrack on September 24, 2013, attorneys for the remaining three plaintiffs (Latif, Maylene Persaud and Scott) consented to inclusion in the then-pending motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They were inadvertently omitted from the caption in the May 16 opinion and order, and the opinion and order was then amended to apply to them.