On February 17, 2025, Delta Air Lines Flight 4819 crash-landed at Toronto Pearson International Airport and flipped upside down, sparking immediate public concern and a wave of litigation.

Now, multiple lawsuits—primarily from U.S. and Canadian passengers—are challenging Delta and its regional carrier, Endeavor Air, under international aviation law and negligence doctrines.

This article examines the legal fallout, the application of the Montreal Convention, and the broader implications for airline liability and crisis response.

The Incident: A Catastrophic Landing

Flight 4819, a CRJ-900 regional jet operated by Endeavor Air on behalf of Delta Connection, experienced a severe mechanical failure during landing. Preliminary investigations attribute the crash to the failure of the right main landing gear, which caused the aircraft to veer, flip, and ultimately catch fire.

Miraculously, all 80 passengers and crew survived, though 21 were hospitalized. The aircraft was destroyed.

Legal Claims Filed Against Delta and Endeavor

Several passengers have since filed lawsuits in U.S. and Canadian courts, alleging gross negligence, emotional trauma, and physical injury. Central to the legal arguments is the Montreal Convention, the international treaty that governs airline liability for international travel, including injuries sustained during disembarkation or landing.

Key Lawsuits:

• Marthinus Lourens (Texas): Filed a federal lawsuit in Georgia, citing injuries and emotional distress after being “drenched with jet fuel” while hanging upside down. He seeks over $200,000 USD in damages.
• Hannah Krebs (Minnesota): Sued in Toronto, alleging crew negligence, improper training, and a failure to execute standard landing procedures. She is pursuing general and special damages under both domestic tort law and the Montreal Convention.

These suits raise questions about aircraft maintenance protocols, pilot training, and airline crisis response.

Delta’s Response and Settlement Offer

In an unusual move, Delta offered $30,000 CAD to each passenger shortly after the crash as a goodwill payment. The airline clarified the offer was “no-strings-attached” and did not require passengers to waive their legal rights. However, some passengers rejected the offer, arguing that it inadequately addressed the trauma and injuries sustained.

Delta has not publicly admitted fault and has stated that it is cooperating with investigations.

Legal and Industry Implications

These lawsuits spotlight several critical issues in aviation law and risk management:

• Montreal Convention Limits: While the treaty imposes strict liability up to approximately $170,000 USD, passengers must prove airline negligence to recover beyond that cap. This shifts the legal burden in cases with severe physical and emotional injuries.
• Jurisdictional Complexity: With plaintiffs from both the U.S. and Canada, and a crash in Canadian airspace involving an American carrier, courts must navigate cross-border procedural rules and forum selection.
• Reputational Risk and Precedent: How Delta handles these claims may influence not only public trust but also industry norms in post-incident compensation and litigation strategy.

Conclusion

As the litigation unfolds, the Delta Flight 4819 incident is shaping up to be a high-profile test of international aviation liability, airline crisis response, and passenger rights. With legal proceedings now underway on both sides of the border, this case could set precedent for how courts interpret liability under the Montreal Convention in increasingly complex cross-border incidents.