Saturday, June 21, 2025

On October 8, 2024, a Singapore Airlines flight SQ26, traveling from Frankfurt Airport (FRA) to New York JFK (JFK), was forced to divert to Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) after a passenger suffered a severe allergic reaction due to a meal mix-up. The incident has led to a lawsuit against the airline, raising concerns over food safety procedures and the airline’s duty of care to passengers with allergies.

The Medical Emergency and Flight Diversion

The passenger, who had previously informed the flight crew of their shellfish allergy, was mistakenly served a shrimp dish during the flight. Despite the clear warning given to the crew prior to takeoff, the passenger was given a meal containing shrimp, which triggered an immediate and severe allergic reaction.

The allergic reaction set in quickly after the passenger consumed the meal. Recognizing the severity of the situation, the flight crew acted promptly, and the decision was made to divert the flight to Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) to provide the necessary medical assistance. Upon landing, emergency medical teams were ready and transported the passenger to a local hospital, where they received treatment at two separate facilities before eventually continuing their journey to the United States.

Legal Action Against Singapore Airlines

The lawsuit references Articles 17 and 21 of the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that governs liability for incidents occurring during international air travel.

The passenger’s lawsuit claims that the airline’s failure to properly accommodate the allergy and provide an appropriate meal violated their obligations under international law, causing both physical harm and emotional distress. The case highlights significant concerns regarding the airline’s food safety procedures and its duty to protect passengers from potentially life-threatening allergic reactions.

Understanding the Montreal Convention’s Legal Provisions

The Montreal Convention sets the legal framework for airline liability in cases of injury or illness during international travel. Two key provisions of the Convention are relevant to this lawsuit:

Article 17: This provision holds airlines liable for bodily injury or death that occurs on board the aircraft or during embarkation and disembarkation. Airlines are required to prove that the injury was caused by external factors, such as the passenger’s own negligence or actions by another individual, in order to avoid liability.

Article 21: This article defines compensation limits for injury or death during international flights. . The SDR is an international reserve currency managed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and is based on a basket of major global currencies.

Food Allergy Management in Air Travel

The case also draws attention to the growing concern over food allergies in air travel. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes nine primary allergens that airlines are required to manage when preparing in-flight meals: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soybeans, and sesame. However, procedures for handling food allergies can vary from one airline to another, with some carriers offering more robust protocols than others.

Passengers with severe allergies are advised to take precautions before and during flights. This includes notifying the flight crew of the allergy before takeoff, requesting a detailed list of ingredients for any in-flight meal, and being cautious about potential hidden allergens in sauces or prepared foods. If ingredient documentation is unavailable, it is recommended to treat the meal as potentially unsafe. Passengers are also advised to carry their own food whenever possible.

Industry Impact and Future Safety Standards

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for the airline industry, particularly in terms of food safety practices. If the lawsuit succeeds, it could push airlines to adopt more standardized and stringent procedures for managing allergens. This may include improved staff training, clearer allergen labeling on meals, and more reliable systems for accommodating passengers with food allergies.

The aviation industry may face increased scrutiny regarding how airlines address the needs of passengers with severe allergies, leading to greater pressure for global standardization.
Conclusion
If the lawsuit succeeds, it could be a catalyst for greater accountability and change in how airlines manage food safety, with broader implications for passengers’ rights and well-being. The aviation industry must act swiftly to ensure that proper care is provided to all passengers, particularly those with life-threatening conditions, to prevent incidents like this from happening again in the future.