When a passenger altercation on Southwest Flight 779 from LaGuardia Airport to Kansas City made headlines earlier this year, it set the stage for Rombola v. Southwest Airlines Co. (Kings Cty. Sup. Ct., Index No. 529027/2025). The plaintiff, Livia Rombola, alleges that her injuries were caused not only by another passenger’s misconduct but also by Southwest Airlines’ decades-old corporate policy of unassigned seating (now being phased out), which she claims created the conditions for the incident.

This case highlights broader questions about how far courts will extend liability for company policies, how foreseeability is applied when misconduct arises from other customers, and whether businesses risk being held responsible for “anything and everything” that happens in connection with their operational choices.

Plaintiff’s Theory: A Decades-Long Policy as the Root of Liability

In her complaint, Rombola alleges that on June 16, 2025, co-defendant Leanna Perry, allegedly intoxicated and disruptive, rejected available seating, became erratic, and ultimately assaulted Rombola. The altercation was recorded and went viral on social media, causing Rombola significant reputation harm in addition to emotional distress. While Perry faces individual claims for assault and battery, the more consequential allegations target Southwest Airlines. Rombola asserts three major negligence-based claims against Southwest Airlines:

• Failure to Intervene and Protect Passengers – The airline permitted an intoxicated passenger to board in violation of FAA regulations.[i]
• Negligent Supervision by Flight Crew – The airline, by its employees, failed to intervene or redirect Perry before the altercation occurred.
• Hazardous Seating Policy – Southwest Airlines maintained an open seating policy that fostered conflict and confusion, making passenger altercations foreseeable, and was therefore a “substantial cause” of the altercation that injured plaintiff.

The last point raises broader questions concerning the extent to which corporate policies, such as Southwest’s unassigned seating policy, may expose companies to claims of negligence due to the actions of others and where the limits should be drawn. This theory argues that the policy itself created an unsafe environment, exposing the airline to liability for misconduct that might otherwise be attributed solely to a disruptive passenger.

The Legal Landscape: Foreseeability and Common Carrier Duties

New York law imposes a heightened duty of care on common carriers like airlines, but stops short of strict liability. Plaintiffs must show the airline knew, or should have known, of a risk and failed to act reasonably. Precedent establishes that airlines may be liable if passenger misconduct was reasonably foreseeable.[ii] However, Rombola’s attempt to extend liability from individual passenger conduct to a corporate policy that has operated for decades enters a new legal territory. Southwest’s seating policy has long set it apart from competitors yet, the policy has not been the subject of widespread litigation before Rombola. Seemingly, this case seeks to expand what may cause, and constitute, a foreseeable hazard to customers.

Can the Potential for Customer Conflict Expose a Company to Liability for the Misconduct of Others?

Plaintiff claims that this policy prioritized financial and logistical efficiency (i.e., faster turnarounds, reduced staffing, upselling of early and open boarding) at the expense of passenger safety. Plaintiff claims that this seating structure fostered competition, confusion, and conflict in a confined cabin environment. Notably, in July 2025, Southwest announced that beginning January 27, 2026, it will transition to assigned seating, describing the change as giving customers “greater control over their travel experience.”[iii] However, courts typically do not treat subsequent policy changes as evidence of prior negligence. Instead, the focus of this litigation will remain on whether the open seating system in place at the time of the incident posed foreseeable unreasonable risks.

Given precedent, plaintiff’s strongest argument is that Perry’s intoxication was obvious and Southwest failed to act. However, the “hazardous seating policy” argument is likely to face significant judicial skepticism. In deciding this issue, the court will likely consider the decades-long time period the open, unassigned seating policy has existed without leading to passenger conflict, whether the potential for conflict can impose liability simply because it may lead to passenger misconduct, and whether the policy itself was the proximate cause of harm. Will courts be willing to set new precedent on the theory that “first-come, first serve” policies may create conflict, and thus, all harm that follows is foreseeable? Absent a clear pattern of risk, extending liability for the conduct of others in this context could have a never-ending reach, especially when the alleged risk of conflict caused by the company policy was known to the harmed party and did not constitute a deterrent from seeking the company’s services.

Key Takeaways

Rombola v. Southwest is an example of an attempt to stretch corporate liability by tying corporate operational policies to unpredictable customer actions. For airlines, transportation providers, and other companies whose business depends on customer interactions, the case is a reminder to balance operational efficiency with a careful assessment of litigation risks tied to policy choices. Regardless of the outcome, this case underscores some core insights for companies to consider:

• Corporate Policies as Liability Targets: Even long-standing, efficiency-driven policies may be challenged after related incidents. Companies should review whether such policies could be framed as creating foreseeable risks.
• Foreseeability is the Limiting Principle: Liability generally requires proof that misconduct was reasonably predictable—not simply that it occurred.
• Employee Training is the Best Defense: Proper documentation, early intervention, and consistent application of safety rules reduce exposure.
• Timeliness of Policy Changes: Updating practices for business reasons is not necessarily an acknowledgment of past negligence; however, companies should be prepared to explain policy changes occurring after a high-profile incident.

Keep Reading

Reaching The Apex: Why We Used Data to Prove Nuclear Verdicts® Can Be Stopped From Code to Courtroom: Raine v. OpenAI and the Future of AI Responsibility It’s All Legalese to Me: How Taking Responsibility Can Help Avoid Liability Upgrade Your Deposition: Applying the Core Four When Is a Second Potentially Case-Dispositive Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication Motion Now Allowed in California? The 2025 Code Amendment Adding CCP Section 437c(a)(5) How Reading for Fun Makes Me a Better Attorney Cover Me: Indemnity Agreements Under Georgia Law Collision, Care, and Clarity: California Supreme Court Reins in MICRA’s Statute of Limitations in Ambulance Crash A Nuclear Lesson in Ethics & Conflicts from the Eastern District of New York

Sources

[i]     14 C.F.R. Part 121; 49 U.S.C. §46504.

[ii]     See Manfredonia v. American Airlines, 68 A.D.2d 131 (2d Dep’t 1979) (negligence claim survived and actions deemed foreseeable where a visibly intoxicated passenger assaulted another traveler, and the airline allegedly continued to serve alcohol); see also, O’Leary v. American Airlines, 100 A.D.2d 959 (2d Dep’t 1984) (carriers may owe additional duties when passengers are visibly impaired).

[iii]    See press release here: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-choice-is-yours-seatisfaction-is-coming-to-southwest-airlines-302509370.html