Stroka v. United Airlines
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
835 A.2d 1247 (2003)
- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Kim Stroka (plaintiff) worked as a flight attendant for United Airlines (defendant). On September 11, 2001, Stroka was not on board United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, killing everyone on board, after terrorists hijacked the flight. Stroka had taken a vacation that day to go bowling and to take care of her daughter. Stroka watched on television at the bowling alley as hijackers crashed two planes into the World Trade Center and learned that a United Airlines flight had crashed. Stroka did not learn that the United flight was the one she was scheduled to work until she left the bowling alley to pick up her daughter. Upon learning the news, Stroka cried and became totally distraught. Stroka was nauseous, trembling, and had trouble with her bowels. Stroka’s symptoms persisted for several days, and she had trouble eating and sleeping. Stroka had been friends with several of the flight attendants who were killed. Stroka was traumatized by the way her friends were murdered by the hijackers and overcome by the guilt brought on by the realization that a flight attendant died because Stroka had taken the day off. Even the sight of an airport runway caused Stroka to have panic attacks. Stroka was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome and became completely disabled. Stroka filed a workers’-compensation claim. A workers’-compensation judge ruled in Stroka’s favor and awarded her medical costs, benefits for her temporary total disability, and attorney’s fees. United Airlines appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Winkelstein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.