Singer sues Singapore Airlines after chicken satay splinter scarred vocal cords

Quick summary

A federal lawsuit filed July 24, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California names Singapore Airlines as defendant after a business class passenger swallowed a wooden splinter from a chicken satay skewer on flight SQ-36 from Singapore to Los Angeles on July 28, 2024. The plaintiff—a professional singer, actress, and wellness educator—alleges the injury caused vocal cord scarring, persistent hoarseness, and professional income loss. The claim invokes Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, which sets a strict liability floor of 128,821 Special Drawing Rights (approximately $176,000) for proven passenger injuries on international flights.

Singapore Airlines has declined to comment publicly. The complaint does not disclose whether damages sought exceed the SDR threshold, leaving the negligence question—and the airline’s full exposure—unresolved.

A Los Angeles–based performer is suing Singapore Airlines over a 1.5-inch wooden splinter she says she swallowed from a satay skewer in business class, with an otolaryngologist subsequently identifying trauma and scarring to her vocal cords consistent with a sharp foreign object injury. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, frames the incident not as a freak accident but as a foreseeable failure in premium cabin food service—one with career-ending implications for a plaintiff whose livelihood depends entirely on her voice.

The injury occurred during a roughly 17-hour transpacific flight. After expelling the splinter mid-flight, the passenger reported choking, respiratory distress, and what her complaint describes as lasting damage: hoarseness, throat pain during extended speaking or singing, and anxiety around eating while flying. People first reported the plaintiff’s identity as Briohny Smyth, a former pop performer and wellness figure with a substantial public following.

The legal vehicle is Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, the international treaty governing airline liability on cross-border flights. That framework applies to virtually every passenger on a Singapore–Los Angeles itinerary, regardless of whether they hold a US, European, or Australian passport.

What the complaint actually alleges—and what the treaty allows

The civil complaint demands a jury trial and seeks damages covering past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, and general damages, with the final amount to be set at trial. The plaintiff contends she was eating the satay as intended—not mishandling it—and explicitly states she bears no responsibility for the injury. That framing matters legally: under the Montreal Convention, the carrier’s ability to escape liability above the SDR cap depends on proving the harm resulted solely from third-party negligence, not its own.

Paddle Your Own Kanoo first reported the complaint details, and People confirmed the plaintiff’s identity and professional background. VnExpress obtained additional complaint specifics, including the medical findings.

The Montreal Convention’s Article 17 framework applies to injuries sustained onboard or during embarkation and disembarkation on international routes. Courts have extended it to burns from hot beverages, baggage falls, and hard landing spinal injuries—food-related cases are less common but not unprecedented. The central question in those cases is always whether the harm qualifies as an “accident” under the treaty’s definition: an unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger.

A splinter detaching from a skewer during normal eating almost certainly clears that bar. The harder fight, if damages exceed the SDR threshold, will be over whether Singapore Airlines‘ catering procedures were negligent.

Why the Montreal Convention changes everything about this claim

Most passengers assume inflight injuries work like any other personal injury claim—file in local court, argue negligence, collect damages. The Montreal Convention rewires that entirely. On any international flight, the treaty displaces domestic tort law and imposes its own two-tier structure: strict liability up to the SDR cap (no negligence required, no contractual escape for the airline), and a higher tier where the passenger must prove the carrier failed to take reasonable precautions.

That structure cuts both ways. It guarantees a meaningful recovery floor—roughly $176,000 at current SDR rates—without requiring the plaintiff to prove anything beyond the injury itself. But it also means airlines facing claims above that threshold have a clear legal strategy: demonstrate that catering was handled correctly and the splinter was an isolated manufacturing defect traceable to a third-party supplier, not a systemic airline failure.

Airlines resolve the vast majority of Article 17 disputes quietly. An adverse judgment creates precedent; a settlement does not. For a carrier whose business class product is partly defined by its satay service, a public ruling on skewer safety protocols carries reputational weight well beyond the damages figure.

Protecting yourself when inflight food service goes wrong

This case is a reminder that premium cabin dishes involving skewers, bones, cocktail sticks, or other hard elements carry real injury risk—and that the legal framework for international flights is more protective than most passengers realize.

• Inspect before eating. Before consuming any dish with a skewer or hard garnish in business or first class, visually check the item and run a finger along the skewer. Wooden skewers can splinter without any visible sign of damage.
• Report immediately. If you find a sharp fragment or suffer any mouth, throat, or choking incident, tell cabin crew right away and ask them to file a written incident report. This creates the paper trail that Article 17 claims depend on.
• Seek specialist medical care on arrival. An otolaryngologist—not a general practitioner—is the right first call for any throat or vocal injury. The Smyth complaint succeeded in establishing injury partly because specialist examination confirmed the mechanism.
• Understand your liability floor. On any international flight, the Montreal Convention guarantees a minimum recovery of roughly $176,000 for proven injuries without requiring you to prove negligence. Higher damages are available if you can show the airline’s procedures were at fault.
• Consult an aviation attorney early. Article 17 claims have strict filing windows that vary by jurisdiction. Waiting to see how injuries develop can forfeit rights.

Watch: Singapore Airlines’ response filing in the Central District of California will signal whether the carrier intends to contest the “accident” classification under Article 17 or move toward settlement—either outcome sets a reference point for how the industry handles food-service injury claims going forward.

Questions? Answers.