IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Plaintiff, TEESEE MURRAY, by way of her attorneys, WISNER LAW FIRM P.C. and 

BOHRER & LUKEMAN, as and for her Complaint against Defendant, UNITED AIRLINES, 

INC. (“United” or “Defendant”), alleges the following upon information and belief: 

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, insofar 

as a federal question is presented pursuant to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules 

for International Carriage by Air done at Montreal on May 28, 1999 (hereinafter “the Montreal 

Convention”). 

2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391, insofar as 

United’s principal place of business is located within the Northern District of Illinois. 

3. Plaintiff, TEESEE MURRAY (“Plaintiff”), resides at 1290 Wine Country Place, 

Templeton, California. 

4. At all times mentioned herein, United is a foreign corporation organized under the 

laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 233 S. Wacker Drive; Chicago, 

Illinois. 

TEESEE MURRAY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendant 

No. 20-cv-4051

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL 

DEMAND 

Case: 1:20-cv-04051 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
5. At the time of the events complained of herein, United transacted business as a 

common carrier of passengers by air as defined by 14 CFR 110.2, and as such, was engaged in the 

business of transporting passengers for hire by air. 

6. In furtherance of its business as a common carrier transporting passengers for hire 

by air, at the time of the events complained of herein, and currently, United operates regularly 

scheduled commercial airline flights to and from Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD), 

located within the boundaries of this judicial district. 

7. In furtherance of said business, United engaged in multiple agreements with other 

airlines to allow its customers to travel around the globe. 

8. One such agreement was/is with Scandinavian Airlines System d/b/a SAS Group 

(“SAS”), which allows United customers to travel to and within several countries, including 

Denmark. 

9. As part of its agreements with other airlines, United routinely enters into contracts 

of carriage and sells airline tickets to commercial passengers for travel aboard commercial air 

carriers other than United, which in some cases, provides none of the actual transportation called 

for in the contracts of carriage. 

10. Plaintiff’s contract of carriage upon which Plaintiff was traveling when the basis 

for this cause of action arose (“the contract of carriage”) was purchased, originated in and 

concluded in the United States of America. 

11. Plaintiff’s contract of carriage which forms the basis for this cause of action was 

purchased from Defendant United which did not perform any of the actual transportation. 

12. Plaintiff’s contract of carriage which forms the basis for this cause of action was 

issued pursuant to an agreement between Defendant United and SAS. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04051 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
13. In issuing the contract of carriage, Defendant United acted as a “principal,” as 

defined by Article 39 of the Montreal Convention. 

14. Accordingly, Defendant United was the contracting carrier, as defined by Article 

39 of the Montreal Convention. 

15. One of the segments of travel purchased by Plaintiff from defendant United in her 

contract of carriage was a flight from Billund Airport, Billund, Denmark (BLL), to Copenhagen 

Airport, Copenhagen, Denmark (CPH) to be operated by SAS, a non-party hereto. 

16. On or about July 11, 2018, SAS, its agents, employees, servants, and/or its 

contractors operated and controlled a certain jet aircraft (“the subject aircraft”) designated as SAS 

flight SAS 1282 from Billund Airport, Billund, Denmark (BLL), to Copenhagen Airport, 

Copenhagen, Denmark (CPH) (“the subject flight”). 

17. On or about July 11, 2018, Plaintiff TEESEE MURRAY was a fare-paying 

passenger who lawfully boarded the subject aircraft and subject flight. 

18. SAS operated the subject flight and transported Plaintiff TEESEE MURRAY by 

virtue of authority granted by Defendant United. 

19. On or about July 11, 2018, and for some time prior thereto, SAS, its agents, 

servants, employees, and/or contractors owned, serviced, maintained, repaired, operated and/or 

otherwise controlled the airstairs, walkways, and other means of boarding the subject aircraft. 

20. It was the responsibility of SAS and its agents, servants, employees, and/or 

contractors to ensure the safety of its passengers and in particular, that the means of access to the 

subject aircraft, including its portable airstairs, were free from hidden dangers. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04051 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
21. That on July 11, 2018, during boarding at BLL, and for a sufficient period 

beforehand, the portable airstairs leading to the subject aircraft, had become dangerous due to its 

instability and/or presence of a wet substance at the top of the stairs. 

22. On July 11, 2018, SAS, its agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors had 

actual and constructive notice of the defective and dangerous condition of the portable airstairs. 

23. On July 11, 2018, SAS, its agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors failed to 

remediate said dangers. 

24. That on July 11, 2018, and for a sufficient period beforehand, SAS negligently, 

carelessly, and/or recklessly caused, permitted, and/or allowed the portable airstairs to become and 

remain in a dangerous condition. 

25. On July 11, 2018, SAS, its agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors failed to 

properly inspect, secure and/or remediate the portable airstairs to ensure that it was safe for use by 

its passengers. 

26. On July 11, 2018, SAS, its agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors failed to 

warn passengers of the airstairs’ dangerous and defective condition. 

27. On July 11, 2018, while boarding the subject flight, Plaintiff fell and was injured. 

28. On July 11, 2018, as Plaintiff ascended the portable airstairs to board the subject 

aircraft, the portable airstairs, the surface of which was slippery and wet, suddenly moved and 

caused her to fall. 

29. On July 11, 2018, Plaintiff fell and was injured as the result of an accident, namely, 

an unexpected or unusual event or occurrence external to the Plaintiff, and not from the Plaintiff’s 

internal reaction to the ordinary operation of the aircraft. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04051 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
30. Said accident occurred due to the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of 

SAS, its agents, employees, servants, and/or contractors. 

31. Insofar as it entered into the contract of carriage with the Plaintiff, United assumed 

responsibility for the safety of Plaintiff’s entire voyage by air, and is liable as the contracting 

carrier, pursuant to Article 39 of the Montreal Convention. 

32. As a result of said accident, Plaintiff was injured. 

33. As a result of said accident, Plaintiff was seriously injured. 

34. As a result of said accident, Plaintiff was permanently injured. 

35. As a result of said accident, Plaintiff has suffered severe pain, agony, and mental 

anguish and in the future will continue to suffer from same. 

36. As a result of said accident, Plaintiff suffered economic loss and in the future shall 

continue to suffer from same. 

37. As a result of said accident, Plaintiff was deprived of her enjoyment of life, pursuits 

and interests and verily believes that in the future she will continue to be deprived of same. 

38. As a result of the foregoing, United is liable to pay full, fair and reasonable damages 

to Plaintiff pursuant to the Montreal Convention. 

39. United cannot meet its burden of proving that its negligence did not cause or 

contribute to the accident, and to Plaintiff’s resultant injuries. 

40. United cannot meet its burden of proving that Plaintiff’s injuries were caused solely 

by the acts of third parties who were not agents, servants and/or contractors of the Defendant and 

performing an essential function in furtherance of the contract of carriage. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04051 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TEESEE MURRAY, demands judgment against Defendant, 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, costs 

and disbursements of this action. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury of eight (8) persons for all claims stated. 

Dated: July 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

WISNER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

 s/Floyd A. Wisner 

 Attorney For Plaintiff 

Floyd A. Wisner

Alexandra M. Wisner 

514 W. State Street 

Suite 200 

Geneva, Illinois 60134 

Tel: (630) 262-9434 

Fax: (630) 262-1066 

faw@wisner-law.com

IL Bar #3048713 

awisner@wisner-law.com

IL Bar #6317572 

BOHRER & LUKEMAN 

 

 

 

 

 ______________________ 

Abram I. Bohrer, Esq. 

5 Columbus Avenue, Suite 1501 

New York, New York 10019 

Tel. (212) 406-4232 

Fax (212) 202-4440 

Email: abe@flightinjury.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04051 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

 

 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04051 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7