Eastern Airlines Inc. Floyd PDF

Preview

Summary

Summer 2016

Topics/Cases Covered: Eastern Airlines Inc. Floyd; Warsaw Convention; Background and legal issues; How should treaties be interpreted?; Sources of Translation; ...

Description

 



 















Day 2/3-Eastern Airlines Inc. Floyd Case: whether article 17 allows recovery for mental or psychic injuries unaccompanied by physical injury or physical manifestation of injury Facts o May 5 1983Eastern Airlines lost an engine on route from Miami to the Bahamas o Passengers were informed that the plane would be ditched in the Atlantic Ocean o After a while, crew managed to restart the engine and land safely back at Miami o Respondentscomplaints against airlines, claiming damages solely for mental distress (absence of any physical injury) Warsaw Convention (international treaty)controls liability in airline cases o District Court heard each complaint in proceedings and concluded that mental anguish alone is no compensable under Article 17 o Court of Appeals for 11th Circuit reversedphrase “lesion corporelle” = encompasses purely emotional distress Legal issue: whether or not the Warsaw Convention allows damages, in civil cases against airlines, for injuries that are purely mental How should treaties be interpreted? (in reference to term “lesion corporelle” ”bodily injury”) o Start by looking at the terms/wordsthe words are French o If the terms themselves aren’t enough to conclusively answer a question, is the Court confined to the words alone?  Court decides to use the word but looks at other construction tools to define vague terms Where do rules of construction come from? On how to interpret treaties? o From precedentthe court cites previous cases for guidance on how to interpret this treaty o Not a universal method!! Different for each country. Warsaw Convention (about liability): o People can hold airlines financially responsible: for the death/wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury (translation from French) Sources of Translation: o Translation from the French (used by US Senate) when deciding whether or not to ratify treaty o Bilingual dictionaries (not always common) o French legal sources (found that no case/judicial decisions had the term “lesion corporelle”) France allowed recovery from mental distress in 1920s. Why did SC agree then? o Court argues: parties to the treaty at that time didn’t understand the term to include mental injuries when they signed the treaty Thesis: argues that term means mental and bloody injuries o Since only few jurisdictions recognize this liability, they would have to make specific reference to the term in the treaty for it to be included o Court: claims they met again to modify the Warsaw convention  At the time, French delegate proposed changing the phrase to a term that would broaden the scope of liability this was rejected SC justice argues that their interpretation of the term as limiting liability to only physical injuries in consistent with the overall purpose of treaty o Purpose of treaty: to limit liability to encourage the growth of the airline industry (not stated in treaty however) Under Article 17: an air carrier is liable for passenger injury only when three conditions are satisfied: o There has been an accident, o In which passenger suffered “mort”/”blessure”/…and,

   

o The accident took place on board the aircraft or in the course of operations of embarking/disembarking Petitioner concedes the incident took place on board the aircraft and was an “accident” for purposes of Art. 17 Respondents concede they suffered neither “mort”/”blessure” from the mishap Issue nowwhether, under interpretation of ‘lesion corporelle’(aka bodily harm), condition is satisfied when a passenger has suffered only a mental/physic injury Conclusion: an air carrier cannot be held liable under Art. 17 when an accident has not caused a passenger to suffer death, physical injury, or physical manifestation of injury

Notes:  Makes good use of how to interpret treaty and words in treaty...