JetBlue Dry Ice Burn Lawsuit: Montreal Convention and Damage Caps

The JetBlue dry ice burn lawsuit was filed in March 2026 by passenger Patricia Matzenbacher, who says a flight attendant on a JFK-to-Paris flight handed her a pack of dry ice when she asked for an ice pack, causing severe burns and tissue damage to her left leg. Because the injury happened on an international flight, the case is governed by the Montreal Convention, which imposes strict liability on the airline for damages up to roughly $215,800 and allows uncapped recovery above that unless JetBlue can prove it wasn’t negligent.¹

What Happened on the Flight

On March 31, 2025, Matzenbacher was aboard JetBlue Flight 1908 between New York’s JFK airport and Paris Charles de Gaulle. Her leg had begun to swell during the flight, and she asked a flight attendant for an ice pack.²

According to the complaint, the crew handed her dry ice instead, apparently believing it was a regular ice pack. She was not told what the pack contained or warned to put a barrier between it and her skin. She applied it directly to her leg.³ The suit alleges the result was severe burns and tissue damage consistent with frostbite.² Dry ice sits at roughly minus 109 degrees Fahrenheit, cold enough to freeze the top layer of skin cells on contact.⁴

The Lawsuit and Where It Stands

Matzenbacher filed her complaint on March 2, 2026, nearly a year after the incident. The case is docketed as Matzenbacher v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, case number 1:26-cv-01196, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.⁵ She is represented by Jeffrey R. Brecker of Godosky & Gentile, P.C., who declined to comment when contacted by media.²

The complaint describes the injuries as “severe and permanent” burns and tissue damage to her left leg. It does not name a dollar figure, instead demanding a jury trial and leaving compensation to the court. JetBlue has not publicly commented on the suit.²

As of June 2026, the case is in discovery. Both sides are gathering evidence including maintenance logs, flight attendant reports, and medical records.⁶ No rulings or settlement developments have been reported.

Why the Montreal Convention Decides This Case

Because Flight 1908 was an international route, the case falls under the Montreal Convention, the 1999 treaty that governs airline liability for passenger death or bodily injury on cross-border flights. Matzenbacher’s complaint invokes Article 17, which makes an airline liable when a passenger suffers bodily injury from an “accident” that takes place on board.²

The treaty doesn’t define “accident.” Courts use the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition from Air France v. Saks (1985): an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger.⁷ The complaint characterizes a crew member handing over dry ice without any warning as exactly that.³

How Damages Are Capped, and When They Aren’t

The convention runs on two tiers. In the first tier, the airline faces strict liability for damages up to 151,880 Special Drawing Rights, roughly $215,800. Below that ceiling, JetBlue cannot escape responsibility by arguing it wasn’t at fault.¹

Above that threshold, liability is uncapped in principle, but the airline can avoid paying the excess by proving the damage was not caused by negligence on its part or its employees’ part, or that it was caused solely by a third party.¹ Matzenbacher’s suit argues the crew’s alleged negligence in handing her dry ice means the cap should not apply, opening the door to unlimited compensatory damages.⁸ Punitive damages are barred at either tier.

What JetBlue Can Argue Back

Legal observers expect JetBlue to invoke Article 20 of the convention, which allows an airline to be partly or fully exonerated if it can prove the passenger’s own negligence contributed to the injury.⁶ The burden is on the airline to show specifically how the passenger’s actions caused or added to the harm.

In a 2024 English case, Wuchner v. British Airways, a court found a passenger 20% at fault for a boarding-gate slip because she had been rushing and carrying too many bags, with British Airways bearing 80% for failing to protect the area around a spill.⁹ Whether JetBlue can persuade a jury that Matzenbacher should have recognized the substance or removed it sooner will be tested in discovery and at trial.

Why Dry Ice Was in the Cabin at All

Dry ice is a routine presence on commercial flights, though it is classified as a hazardous material. The hazardous-materials rules do not apply to dry ice that a carrier uses for food and beverage service aboard the aircraft.¹⁰ In airline catering, dry ice is commonly used to keep inflight meals at safe temperatures, and standardized airline-cut blocks are manufactured specifically for galley use.¹¹

That means dry ice can be present in the same galley spaces where crew members work, which is one way it could end up being handed to a passenger asking for a cold compress. The complaint alleges the crew failed to follow safety protocols for handling hazardous materials and did not identify the substance before giving it to Matzenbacher.

1
ICAO. Montreal Convention Liability Framework
2
People. Passenger Sues JetBlue After Flight Attendant Allegedly Gave Her Dry Ice Pack by Mistake
3
NDTV. JetBlue Sued for Allegedly Giving Passenger Dry Ice Instead of Ice Pack, Causing Serious Burns
4
Cleveland Clinic. Dry Ice Burn
5
CourtListener. Matzenbacher v. JetBlue Airways Corporation
6
Simple Flying. JetBlue Passenger Lawsuit Dry Ice Burns
7
Oxford University Press. Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention
8
Aviation A2Z. JetBlue Sued After Passenger Suffers Dry Ice Burns
9
3 Hare Court. The Montreal Convention, Contributory Negligence, and Limits on Damages
10
eCFR. 49 CFR Part 175 – Carriage by Aircraft
11
Emory Dry Ice. Dry Ice Airplane USA Catering Services Packaging