Dr. Abid Hanson was traveling with his wife and family aboard an Olympic Airways flight from Athens to New York. He suffered from asthma and was affected by secondhand smoke. They were seated in a nonsmoking section, three rows from the smoking section. As Dr. Hanson was struggling to breathe, his wife, Rubina Husain, made three urgent requests that he be moved away from the smoke. Her requests were refused. The flight attendant claimed that the flight was "totally full" (which was not correct) and that she was "too busy." Dr. Hanson walked to the front of the plane for air. He died shortly later, despite attempts to revive him. At trial, the court awarded Mrs. Husain a $1.4 million judgment due to the willful conduct of the flight attendant. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed. Olympic Airways appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Dr. Hanson's death was the result of his internal reaction to the usual and expected operation of the airplane and thus not the result of an accident.
1. Why were the events in this case deemed "unexpected or unusual"?
2. Why did the Court reject Olympic's argument that the term "accident" refers only to affirmative acts?
3. What is the significance of the attendant's failure to move the asthmatic passenger away from smoke when that was contrary to airline industry procedures?
4. How does this case differ from Air France v. Saks and the British "deep vein thrombosis" cases, cited in the text?