Montreal Convention inapplicable where injured passenger unable to prove that airline regarded multi-airline carriage as “single operation”

Kruger v. United Air Lines, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007).  While waiting on a jetway to board a flight from San Francisco to Seattle, the passenger was inadvertently struck on the head by a backpack swung by another boarding passenger.  The passenger was able to board but became “dazed and nauseated” during the flight due to the incident.

The passenger’s complaint against United alleged that the Montreal Convention governed her claims and also that the airline was liable under various state common law tort causes of action, including negligence, negligent training and supervision of employees and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

United moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the passenger’s state common law claims were preempted by the Montreal Convention.  In its motion, United expressed doubt that the Montreal Convention governed the case, as the incident appeared to have occurred in connection with a domestic flight, but United correctly stated that the court had to accept the passenger’s allegation that the Convention governed as true for purposes of the motion.  As previously reported, the court held that the Convention preempted the passenger’s state common law tort causes of action but that she had stated sufficient facts to plead a cause of action under Article 17 of the Convention by alleging “bodily injury” (the in-flight nausea) that had been caused by an “accident” (the backpack incident) during the course of embarking.

United then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Montreal Convention did not apply because the jetway incident had occurred in connection with a domestic flight, not an international flight.  Prior to the flight at issue, the passenger had traveled on a United flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco and, before that, on a Qantas flight from Australia to Los Angeles.  Since more than one airline was involved in the transportation, for the flight at issue to constitute “international carriage” governed by the Montreal Convention, it had to be part of “one undivided carriage” under Article 1(3).  Under Article 1(3), a series of flights is considered “one undivided carriage” only “if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation.”

The court held that the passenger had failed to produce sufficient objective evidence that United had regarded her flights “as a single operation.”  In support of its conclusion, the court noted that the United and Qantas tickets “were not issued by the same travel agent or made as part of a package,” that “they were reserved and paid for separately,” that “the two airlines did not have code sharing agreements and were not partners in the same worldwide alliance,” that “there were no communications between the airlines to coordinate the flights,” and that “the facts of one airline’s itinerary or ticketing was not reflected on the other airline’s itinerary or ticket.”  Accordingly, the court granted United’s motion for summary judgment.

Note:  The court’s summary judgment ruling did not end the case.  The court allowed the passenger to refile her state common law tort causes of actions against United – the very ones that the court had earlier held were preempted by the Montreal Convention – and she did so.

Airline held liable to passenger for travel agent negligence

Rottman v. El Al Israel Airlines (N.Y. City Civil Ct. Jan. 14, 2008).  The parties in this case reprised a battle that has been fought in many passenger cases over the years:  whether a travel agent was acting as an agent of an airline or as an independent contractor when the travel agent sold the passenger a ticket.  In this case, the passenger prevailed.

The passenger had bought tickets from a travel agent for travel between Baltimore and Tel Aviv.  The passenger was to take a flight from BWI to JFK on a domestic airline and then from JFK to Tel Aviv on El Al.  However, the BWI-JFK ticket issued by the travel agent did not allow the passenger sufficient time to comply with El Al’s rule requiring that passengers check in at least three hours before departure.  As a result, El Al deemed the passenger a “no show,” causing the passenger to forfeit his seat on the flight.  The passenger bought a one-way ticket on a different airline and traveled to Tel Aviv three days later.

The passenger sued El Al for breaching the parties’ contract by refusing to transport him and for the travel agent’s negligence in issuing a ticket that made it impossible for the passenger to comply with the advance check-in rule.  The court held that the airline did not breach the contract because the passenger did not attempt to check in until less than an hour before the flight’s departure, thus violating the check-in rule and allowing the airline to deny him transportation on the flight.

As to the negligence claim, the airline claimed that it was not liable because the travel agent was the airline’s independent contractor, not its agent.  The court disagreed.  Citing two 30-plus year-old cases and the Restatement of Agency, the court held that the travel agent was acting as the airline’s agent when it sold the tickets to the passenger and, thus, that the airline was responsible for the travel agent’s error.  The court awarded the passenger a judgment in the amount of the one-way ticket that the passenger had bought.

Note:  The court’s opinion does not contain any indication that the court, in deciding whether an agency relationship existed between El Al and the travel agent, considered the degree of control that the airline actually had over the travel agent.  As the Ninth Circuit correctly held in Harby v. Saadeh and Kuwait Airways, an agency relationship between an airline and a travel agent only exists where the passenger has met the burden of proving that the airline had agreed to allow the travel agent to act on its behalf and subject to its control.  In Harby, the court held that Kuwait Airways was not liable for a travel agent’s negligence in failing to warn the passenger about the airline’s infrequent flight schedule because the passenger had failed to meet his burden of proving that the airline actually controlled such agent, thus leading the court to conclude that the agent had simply acted as a broker, i.e., an independent contractor.

In Rottman, the court concluded that El Al and the travel agent stood in an agency relationship simply because, in the court’s view, all airlines and travel agents that issue tickets for them do so.  In support of its conclusion, the court in Rottman cited the following sentence from the Restatement of Agency:  “Analogizing them to insurance agents, travel agents have been characterized as the agents of airlines and other service providers for whom they issue tickets to customers.”  But, later in the same paragraph, the Restatement of Agency also states:  “In other situations, courts have analogized a travel agent to an insurance broker or, reasoning differently, have characterized a travel agent as the customer’s agent.”  As Harby and the Restatement indicate, an agency relationship does not always exist between an airline and a travel agent that sells tickets for that airline.

Airline obtains reversal of passenger jury verdict in refusal to transport case

Cerqueira v. American Airlines, Inc. (1st Cir. (Mass.) Jan. 10, 2008).  As previously reported, in December 2003, American Airlines removed three passengers, a man of Portuguese national origin and two Israelis seated nearby, from an aircraft at the departure gate in Boston for questioning by state police officers.  After the questioning, the airline declined to rebook them on another flight to Ft. Lauderdale.

The passenger of Portuguese national origin filed a lawsuit against the airline.  He alleged that airline personnel removed him from the aircraft and then refused to provide him service solely because of his perceived national origin, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and a Massachusetts antidiscrimination statute.  The airline alleged that the passengers had been removed for questioning and then refused service solely due to security concerns based on their alleged unusual behavior before and during the boarding process.

After a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the passenger, assessing compensatory damages of $130,000 and punitive damages of $270,000.  After the trial court denied American’s motions for a JNOV and a new trial, American appealed.

Only two months after the appeal was argued, the First Circuit issued an opinion reversing the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case to the district court with instructions to enter judgment for American.  The First Circuit’s opinion centered on 49 U.S.C. § 44902, entitled “Refusal to transport passengers and property,” which provides in section (b) as follows:  “Permissive Refusal. – Subject to regulations of the Under Secretary, an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety.”

American had requested that the trial judge give a series of jury instructions regarding section 44902(b), including the well-established standard for liability that the jury must return a verdict for the airline unless its actions with respect to the passenger were “arbitrary or capricious.”  The judge refused to give the requested instructions.  The First Circuit held that the omitted instructions “were essential to the case” and the trial court had erred by refusing to give them.

The First Circuit also held that the instructions that were given were erroneous.  The most serious error was that the trial judge had instructed the jury that American had the burden of proving that its reasons for removing the passenger were legitimate.  The appeals court held that, in a section 44902(b) case, it is the passenger who has the burden of proof, and the passenger must prove that the airline’s conduct was arbitrary or capricious.

Update:  On February 29, 2008, the First Circuit denied the passenger’s petition for rehearing en banc.  Two judges dissented from the denial of the petition.