An air carrier's standard boarding announcement that baggage stored in overhead bins could shift during flight, did not as a matter of law, fulfill its duty to provide adequate safety for passengers. In reversing the grant of a motion for summary judgment the Ninth Circuit noted that in 1987 the air carrier had received 1354 reports of items falling from overhead bins and that installing netting inside of the bins would not necessarily be prohibitively expensive or inconvenient. The issue of whether the air carrier had fulfilled its standard arrival announcement, was one to be presented to the jury. Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc., 24 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1994).
The courts have incorporated the federal aviation regulation articulation of the "see-and-be-seen rule." 14 C.F.R. 91.113(b) (1995). In a mid-air collision case the court focused on the definition of the see-and-be-seen vigilance requirement. The court ruled that "[t]he requirement... is one of vigilance to see and avoid those aircraft the pilot could reasonably be expected to see. [The rule] does not require pilots to see all other aircraft." The court stated: "the reasonably prudent pilot need not be superhuman in seeing and avoiding other aircraft, but he or she must scan the sky with such frequency and respond with such precision as is possible." Steering Committee v. United States, 6 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 1993). This is often a battle of the experts as to what a reasonable pilot could have seen under the circumstances, and will typically be a jury question.
Two decisions have held that an air carrier is not liable for slip and falls on icy tarmacs. The basis is underlying state premise liability law, and whether land owners are responsible to remove natural accumulations of snow or ice. Filipot v. Midway Airlines, Inc. 633 N.E.2d 237 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994); Sheffer v. Springfield Airport Authority, 632 N.E.2d 1069 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)(no duty of warnings for natural accumulations).
Weston v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y., No. CV 89-0206, Aug. 21, 1995. Weston, 45, was killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. He had been a businessman earning about $235,000 annually and is survived by his wife and two children.
A jury held defendant liable, finding the airline had engaged in willful misconduct by failinig to implement proper security measures. In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie, Scotland,on Dec. 21, 1988, U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y., NO. MDL-799, (July 10, 1992).
The Second Circuit affirmed, 37 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 1994), and a number or wrongful death actions arising out of the crash either settled or proceeded to trial on damages.
The weston parties settled for $9 million shortly before commencement of the damages trial.
In Csizmazia v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, CV-94-1593 (E.D.N.Y Aug. 19, 1994), the court enforced the two-year limitation period that was printed on the defendant air carrier's passenger ticket stock and included in its tariff filed with the Department of Transportation.
The court enforced the contractual limitation period after finding that the Warsaw convention did not apply to plaintiff's action and declining to consider the issue of whether the action was preempted by the airline deregulation act (ADA) of 1978.
The court enforced the contractual limitation period after finding that the air carrier had properly included the limitation in the tariff it filed under section 403(a) of the Federal Aviation Act. Thus, the court did not have to consider the ADA preemption issue.
| Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page |