Passenger’s fear of contagious disease not compensable under Montreal Convention

November 30, 2015

Jane Doe v. Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C. (E.D. Mich. Oct. 13, 2015).  During a flight from Abu Dhabi to Chicago, the passenger/plaintiff was pricked by a discarded syringe when she reached into in a seatback pocket.  The plaintiff sought treatment from her physician, who prescribed antiviral drugs and HIV and hepatitis tests.  The tests, which were administered over the course of a year, showed that the plaintiff had not developed HIV.

The plaintiff sued Etihad under the Montreal Convention.  She alleged that that her injury had caused her emotional distress and mental anguish, primarily in the form of her fear of developing HIV or hepatitis.  Her husband alleged a derivative loss of consortium claim.

Etihad moved for partial summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s fear of contagion damages were not recoverable under the Montreal Convention because they did not arise from a “bodily injury” within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention.  That provision states as follows:  “The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”  Etihad cited numerous cases arising under the Montreal Convention, and under its Warsaw Convention predecessor, rejecting passengers’ recovery of emotional distress damages that were not caused by any “bodily injury.”

Etihad argued that the plaintiff’s fear of contagion damages were not caused by the “very minor and brief pain” resulting from the needlestick, i.e., the only “bodily injury” that occurred, but by her “unfounded fear of exposure to a contagious disease.”  Etihad also argued that the plaintiff’s fear of contagion damages were too speculative to be recovered under Michigan law.

The court agreed with Etihad’s Montreal Convention argument and granted the airline’s motion.  The court did not consider Etihad’s Michigan law argument.


Montreal Convention applies, and time-bars, passenger’s claims despite injury’s occurrence during domestic flight

October 11, 2015

Cattaneo v. American Airlines, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2015).  The passenger/plaintiff traveled roundtrip on American’s flights between LAX and Cozumel, Mexico, via DFW, in June 2011.  In her complaint filed in November 2014, the plaintiff alleged that, during the DFW-LAX flight, a flight attendant gave her “an unlidded cup of hot water,” which spilled on her lap when the aircraft encountered turbulence, causing injuries.

American moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by Article 35(1) of the Montreal Convention, which extinguishes the right to damages if an action is not commenced within two years “from the date of arrival at the destination.”  American noted that the Convention applied even though the alleged injury occurred during the domestic DFW-LAX flight because, under Article 1(2), “international carriage” triggering the application of the Convention exists “where or not there be a break in the carriage.”

The plaintiff responded by arguing that the Convention did not apply because the DFW-LAX flight was “completely domestic.”  The court agreed with American, finding that the plaintiff’s itinerary, which included same-day travel from Cozumel to LAX, objectively demonstrated that the DFW-LAX flight was “part of her longer international trip.”  Accordingly, the court granted American’s motion to dismiss.


Court shows the door to passenger’s exit row seating claims

April 3, 2015

Naqvi v. Turkish Airlines, Inc. (D.D.C. Feb. 23, 2015).  While checking in for his Turkish Airlines flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Istanbul, Turkey, the passenger/plaintiff requested an exit row seat.  According to the plaintiff, airline personnel denied his request but promised him a “leg space seat.”  The plaintiff alleged that, upon boarding the aircraft, he discovered that the exit row seats were occupied by passengers who did not meet the minimum height requirement for such seats and that his assigned seat was not a “leg space seat.”  The plaintiff also alleged that the airline violated several safety requirements, including by not illuminating the seat belt signs before landing.  The plaintiff asserted that the airline’s conduct caused him to suffer “extreme emotional and physical distress.”

In his pro se complaint, the plaintiff advanced causes of action for breach of contract and for discrimination under what the court described as a “kaleidoscope of federal statutes.”  The plaintiff demanded compensatory damages of $250,000 and punitive damages of $150,000.  After removing the case to federal court, Turkish Airlines moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Montreal Convention preempted its claims and that it failed to state an actionable breach of contract or discrimination claim.

The court granted the motion.  First, the court ruled that the Montreal Convention governed the plaintiff’s claims because they arose from “international carriage” within the meaning of the Convention.  The court then ruled that the Convention preempted the plaintiff’s contract and discrimination causes of action.  According to the court, the result of the preemption was that, unless the plaintiff could “shoehorn his allegations into an actionable claim” under Article 17 of the Convention, which governs compensation “for the type of personal injury alleged” in the case, he could not state any claim whatsoever against the airline.

Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention provides as follows:  “The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”  The court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to plead that his injuries had been caused by an “accident,” as is required to state a claim under Article 17.  Citing cases, the court ruled that, because “disputes over airline seat assignments are neither unexpected nor unusual,” the dispute alleged by the plaintiff did not qualify as an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff’s Article 17 claim failed, even assuming the occurrence of an “accident,” because the plaintiff had failed to “allege that an actionable ‘bodily injury’ resulted from defendant’s purported transgressions.”  The plaintiff had asserted that he had suffered “extreme emotional and physical distress,” but, in accordance with the governing caselaw, the court ruled that physical manifestations of mental injuries did not satisfy the Article 17 “bodily injury” requirement.

Note:  The plaintiff has another pro se case against an airline, Naqvi v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, pending in the same court.

 


Airline’s conditions of carriage withstand tropical storm

February 19, 2015

Chen v. China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. (N.Y. City Civ. Nov. 20, 2014).  The passenger/plaintiff bought a six-segment China Eastern ticket from an online travel agent.  After taking the first two flights (New York to Shanghai and Shanghai to Manila), the plaintiff took a side trip in the Philippines on a different airline.  The plaintiff alleged that “an unexpected and strangely behaving tropical storm” prevented him from traveling on the third and fourth flights in the sequence (Manila to Shanghai and Shanghai to Urumqi, China) and that he informed China Eastern that he would be available to travel on the fifth and sixth flights (Urumqi to Shanghai and Shanghai to New York).  The third and fourth flights departed as scheduled.

China Eastern refused to allow the plaintiff to travel on the fifth or sixth flights in the sequence.  The airline relied on the conditions of carriage applicable to the ticket, which required that the flight coupons “be used in sequence as specified on the Ticket” and that the failure to use them in sequence “will result in the refusal of CEAIR to provide carriage.”

The passenger arranged for transportation to New York on a different airline and then brought a lawsuit against China Eastern, alleging breach of contract.  After conducting discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court granted the airline’s motion and denied the plaintiff’s motion.  The court ruled that China Eastern’s conditions of carriage had been incorporated in the parties’ contract of carriage by reference because, in accordance with federal regulations, the plaintiff had received notice of such incorporation and the conditions of carriage were available for inspection at the departure airport.  The court also ruled that the conditions of carriage required that the flight coupons be used in sequence and that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with this requirement permitted the airline to refuse him carriage on the remaining flights.  Thus, the court held that the airline had not breached the contract of carriage.

In his motion, the plaintiff, an attorney, advanced several creative arguments.  One argument was that his inability to comply with the flight coupon sequence requirement was excused under the force majeure doctrine.  He contended that his flight to Manila had been canceled due a force majeure event, the tropical storm, and that such event excused his failure to use the coupons in sequence.  China Eastern responded that the force majeure doctrine did not have any logical application to the plaintiff because such doctrine is a defense that is only available to a non-performing party that is alleged to have breached a contract, and that the plaintiff had taken the position that he was the non-breaching party.  The court agreed with the airline.


Court downgrades passengers’ seating upgrade lawsuit

January 21, 2015

Gulilat v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2014).  After boarding their flight from New York to Ghana, the two passenger/plaintiffs made a request to a flight attendant that they be reassigned to “upgraded comfort seats,” according to their amended complaint.  The plaintiffs asserted that Delta employees not only denied their request, but that the employees upgraded white passengers to the “comfort seats,” shouted racial epithets at the plaintiffs as they were escorted off the aircraft by authorities in Ghana and falsely stated to such authorities that the plaintiffs had engaged in unlawful conduct during the flight.

The plaintiffs’ amended complaint sought $1 million in damages under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention.  Article 17(1) provides as follows:  “The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”

Delta moved to dismiss, and the court granted Delta’s motion.  The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to plead that their injuries had been caused by an “accident,” as is required to state a claim under Article 17.  Citing numerous cases, the court ruled that, because a dispute related to aircraft seating “is neither unexpected nor unusual,” the dispute alleged by the plaintiffs did not qualify as an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs’ Article 17 claim failed, even assuming the occurrence of an “accident,” because the seating dispute did not result in any “bodily injury” to either plaintiff.  The plaintiffs asserted that they had suffered emotional distress and anxiety, but, in accordance with the governing caselaw, the court ruled that these physical manifestations of emotional distress did not satisfy the Article 17 “bodily injury” requirement.


Court rejects passenger’s “principal and permanent residence” argument in subject matter jurisdiction dispute

February 13, 2014

Razi v. Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C. (S.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2014).  A passenger traveling on a roundtrip ticket for transportation originating in Pakistan alleged she was burned by a hot beverage served by a flight attendant during a flight from Doha, Qatar, to Houston.  The passenger filed a lawsuit in a Texas state court, which the airline removed to federal court.

Qatar Airways then moved to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention.  Pursuant to Article 33 of the Convention, a plaintiff may bring an action for damages in the United States against a carrier only when the United States is (i) “the domicile of the carrier,” (ii) the “principal place of business” of the carrier, (iii) the place where the carrier has a “place of business through which the contract has been made,” (iv) “the place of destination,” or (v) in cases involving the death or injury of a passenger, the “principal and permanent residence” of the passenger at the time of the accident.

The passenger’s only possible shot at defeating the motion was proving that the United States was her “principal and permanent residence,” which the Convention defined as her “one fixed and permanent abode,” at the time of the incident.  She had alleged in her complaint that she resided in Houston, but the court found that, at the time of the incident, she was a citizen of Pakistan, was traveling to the United States under a “Five-Year Multiple-Entry Visa” and had intended to stay in the United States for only three and a half months.  Based on these findings, the court ruled that the passenger’s “one fixed and permanent abode” was Pakistan, not the United States, and granted the airline’s motion.

Note:  Qatar Airways successfully used a similar subject matter jurisdiction argument in a Maryland case (Alemi v. Qatar Airways) in 2012.


Ejected passenger’s claims fall, and fail, under Montreal Convention

December 12, 2011

Rogers v. Continental Airlines (D. N.J. Sept. 21, 2011).  The passenger and her daughter boarded the aircraft for a flight from Newark, New Jersey, to Cancun, Mexico, and stood in the forward galley while flight attendants tried to sort out their seat assignments.  While waiting, the passenger answered a call on her mobile phone.  When a flight attendant told her to end the call, she replied that “the pilot didn’t announce not to be on your phone and I’m talking to my Mom” and continued her conversation.  Unimpressed by the passenger’s asserted “mom call” exception to 14 C.F.R. § 91.21, Continental personnel requested that the passenger deplane.  After some resistance by the passenger, and after an airline employee allegedly threw some of her carry-on items from the aircraft onto the jetway, she deplaned.

Continental rebooked the passenger and her daughter on a later flight, and they arrived in Cancun “several hours later than originally scheduled.”

The passenger filed a lawsuit against Continental in state court, alleging claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract.  The airline removed the case to federal court.

After discovery, the airline moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Montreal Convention exclusively governed the passenger’s claims and that she had failed to state a viable claim under the Convention.  Under Article 17(1) of the Convention, “[t]he carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”

In opposition to the motion, the passenger resisted the application of the Convention, arguing that her injuries had occurred in the terminal after she had deplaned.  The court disagreed, finding that the passenger had admitted, in her complaint and during her deposition, that her injuries had occurred on board the aircraft and while disembarking in the jetway.  Thus, the court concluded, the Convention applied.

The court then analyzed whether the passenger had alleged facts sufficient to support a viable “bodily injury” claim under Article 17(1).  The court found that, although the passenger had complained of “physical manifestations of emotional and mental anguish” in her complaint, she had admitted during her deposition that she had, in fact, not sustained any physical injury as a result of the incident at issue.  Accordingly, the court held that her tort and contract claims failed as a matter of law and granted the airline’s motion.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.