Ryanair (FR), the carrier that introduced paperless boarding last year, agreed to pay combined damages approaching €25,000 to two passengers who suffered injuries on separate flights, Ireland’s Circuit Civil Court heard on Tuesday, June 16, 2026. The cases were brought before Judge James O’Donohoe and both were settled without proceeding to a full trial, The Irish Times reported.
The first case involved a young child who was inadvertently scalded by hot tea on a flight from Athens, Greece to Dublin, Ireland. The second involved a Clare-based driver who alleged a sales trolley struck his left knee on a flight from Shannon to Wrocław, Poland, before Christmas 2024. Both settlements were approved by Judge O’Donohoe on the same day.
The First Case Involves an Eight-Year-Old Boy Scalded by Hot Tea On Athens–Dublin Flight
Barrister Mark Byrne appeared before Judge O’Donohoe on behalf of Eoin Long, who celebrated his eighth birthday the previous week. Byrne told the court that the incident occurred on a Ryanair flight from Athens International Airport “Eleftherios Venizelos” (ATH), Greece, to Dublin Airport (DUB), Ireland. Eoin was six years old at the time of the injury.
The court heard that Eoin was returning from a holiday in Greece with his parents when a flight attendant served hot tea to the boy’s father. During the service, hot tea spilled over Eoin’s right arm and right thigh. A flight attendant and a nurse who happened to be seated nearby provided on-board first aid to the child.
According to The Irish Times, Barrister Byrne told the court that the injuries had not caused any scarring to the boy’s arm or leg. He recommended that the court accept Ryanair’s settlement offer of €12,000, which Judge O’Donohoe approved.
The Second Case Involved Clare Driver’s Knee Injury on Shannon–Wrocław Flight
The second case was brought by Krzysztof Matkowski, a 40-year-old driver who resides at Ashview Court, Sixmilebridge, Co. Clare. He claimed to have suffered an injury to his left knee on a Ryanair flight from Shannon Airport (SNN), Ireland, to Copernicus Airport Wrocław (WRO), Poland, in late 2024. Barrister Paul Gallagher appeared for Matkowski in the proceedings.
Matkowski had originally brought a €60,000 damages claim against Ryanair, alleging a sales trolley had collided with his knee during the flight. He further alleged the resulting soft tissue injury caused him pain when driving. The case eventually settled within the €15,000 jurisdiction of the District Court.
Barrister Gallagher explained that the settlement attracted only District Court costs, indicating the final sum paid by Ryanair fell below the €15,000 threshold. The exact amount was not publicly revealed in court.
A Pattern Of Hot Beverage Incidents on Ryanair Flights
The Eoin Long case is not the first time Ryanair has faced legal action over in-flight scalding injuries. Irish courts have heard several such cases over the past few years, establishing a clear pattern of litigation.
In February 2026, the Circuit Civil Court approved a €15,500 settlement after an 18-month-old child was allegedly scalded by hot coffee on a Ryanair flight from Reus Airport (REU), Spain, to DUB. That child’s legal team alleged:
- Ryanair used a tray not suitable for its purpose
- Hot drinks were placed in dangerous proximity to a young child
- The coffee container did not have a properly secured lid
- The airline did not have an adequate first aid box on board
In 2019, an eight-year-old American girl named Sriya Venkata Neti settled her High Court action for €150,000 after suffering significant scald burns when a cup of hot chocolate tipped into her lap on a Ryanair flight from Rome to Kraków. The child’s barrister noted that, under the Warsaw Convention, an airline can be held liable for bodily injuries caused by an “unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger” without requiring proof of specific negligence.
A Circuit Civil Court judge was told as far back as 2017 that scalding cases on Ryanair flights came before the courts every month. That frequency has continued to produce court settlements into 2026.
Ryanair’s Broader Legal Footprint in Irish Courts
The two passenger injury settlements come at a time when Ryanair has been an active participant in Irish courts from multiple sides of the courtroom. In May 2026, the airline received a judgment for more than €15,000 in damages against a Dublin man, James Doherty, after his disruptive behaviour forced a Lanzarote-bound flight to divert to Porto, Portugal.
Ryanair originally filed those proceedings in January 2025, describing the passenger’s conduct as “completely unacceptable” and stating his behaviour “forced this flight to divert to Porto where it was delayed overnight, causing 160 passengers to face unnecessary disruption as well as losing a full day of their holiday.” The airline shared a breakdown showing the diversion cost it approximately €15,000, including €7,000 in overnight accommodation, €2,500 in landing and handling fees, €1,800 in replacement crew costs, and €800 in excess fuel.
Separately, in March 2026, bailiffs boarded a Ryanair Boeing 737 at Linz Airport in Austria after the airline failed to comply with a court order to pay a passenger €890 in compensation and legal costs for a flight delayed by 13 hours. A seizure sticker — known as a “cuckoo sticker” — was fixed to the aircraft’s cabin wall, giving the court legal control over the plane. Ryanair disputed that the aircraft had been physically seized, saying it departed Linz that morning with only a brief delay.
We had also previously covered Ryanair’s cabin crew safety concerns, including a case heard in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in which a crew member reported being sexually assaulted during an inbound Ryanair service.
.jpg){kind=link}
What The Montreal Convention Means for Airline Liability
Both the child scalding case and the knee injury claim are governed in part by the Montreal Convention of 1999, which sets out the liability framework for international air carriers. Under Article 17(1) of the Convention, an airline is liable for bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the damage was caused by an “accident” during the flight.
Legal experts have previously noted that the Convention defines an “accident” as an unforeseen, harmful, and involuntary event. This broad definition means passengers do not always need to prove airline negligence; they only need to show that an unusual or unexpected external event caused the injury. This interpretation has been affirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, making it easier for passengers on international flights to secure settlements without full trials.
The Matkowski case — which settled for a sum below €15,000 despite an initial claim of €60,000 — illustrates how settlement values in Irish courts are significantly shaped by the jurisdictional thresholds of the Circuit Court and the District Court. Claims settled within the District Court’s €15,000 ceiling attract lower legal costs for both parties.
Ryanair’s Onboard Service Model And Safety Context
Ryanair operates one of the highest-volume in-flight retail programmes in European aviation. The airline’s ancillary revenue model includes hot and cold beverages, meals, and a range of goods sold from trolleys pushed through narrow cabin aisles. The airline carried 200 million passengers in its fiscal year 2025 and operates a fleet of Boeing 737 aircraft across its European network.
The confined nature of narrow-body cabins, where trolleys must pass through rows with limited clearance, creates specific risk conditions for both hot beverage spills and trolley-related injuries. Courts have heard that these incidents occur regularly enough to produce consistent litigation. A Ryanair cabin crew member in the 2026 Reus–Dublin case noted in submitted evidence that staff receive specific training on the handling and service of hot drinks, including securing lids before service.
Ryanair has not issued a public statement in response to either of the June 16 settlements. The airline has a general practice of settling qualifying personal injury claims within Irish courts rather than contesting them to verdict, as demonstrated by multiple cases reviewed by the Circuit Civil Court in recent years.