Recent Developments in Aviation Liability Law Blanca I
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 66 | Issue 1 Article 3 2001 Recent Developments in Aviation Liability Law Blanca I. Rodriguez Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Blanca I. Rodriguez, Recent Developments in Aviation Liability Law, 66 J. Air L. & Com. 21 (2001) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol66/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AVIATION LIABILITY LAW BLANCA I. RODRIGUEZ* ** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 24 II. THE MONTREAL CONVENTION OF 1999 ....... 25 A. THE PASSENGER CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 17 ..................................... 27 B. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY ................... 29 C. ELIMINATION OF DAMAGES LIMITATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A Two-TIERED COMPENSATION SCH EM E ......................................... 29 D. ADVANCE PAYMENTS AND AUTOMATIC REVIEW OF TIER ONE PAYMENT AMOUNTS .................. 31 E. PASSENGER'S CONTRIBUTORY FAULT ............. 31 F. COURT COSTS AND LEGAL EXPENSES ............ 32 G. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ............................. 32 H. ADDITION OF THE FIFTH PLACE OF TREATY JURISDICTION ................................... 33 I. TICKET DELIVERY ............................... 34 J. RECOURSE AGAINST THIRD PARTIES AT FAULT ... 34 K. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ....................... 34 L. ACTS OF AGENTS AND SERVANTS OF THE C ARRIER ........................................ 34 III. LIABILITY OF AIR CARRIERS UNDER THE 1929 WARSAW CONVENTION .......................... 35 A. THE UNITED STATES ADOPTS THE 1975 MONTREAL PROTOCOL No. 4 ................... 35 * A partner in the New York City law firm of Kreindler & Kreindler, concentrating in aviation accident law and complex tort litigation. J.D., New York University School of Law, 1981. ** This article would not have been possible without the tremendous effort of Jacqueline M. James, an attorney at Kreindler & Kreindler. 22 JOURNAL OFAIR LAW AND COMMERCE [66 B. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 1996 IATA INTERCARRIER AGREEMENTS WAIVING ARTICLE 22 ..................................... 37 C. DEFINING AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT ........... 39 D. DETERMINING TREATY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADHERENTS ..................................... 40 E. THE ARTICLE 17 CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PASSENGER INJURY AND DEATH .................. 44 1. Supreme Court Decides Exclusivity Issue ....... 44 2. Accident Under Article 17 ........ ....... 48 3. Article 17 Requirement of Death or Bodily Injury ....................................... 56 F. RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 17 ................... 58 G. ARTICLE 20 ALL NECESSARY MEASURES DEFENSE. 60 H. ARTICLE 25 UNLIMITED COMPENSATORY LIABILITY FOR CARRIER'S WILLFUL MISCONDUCT ........... 60 I. ARTICLE 28(1) .................................. 65 1. Third Party Claims for Indemnification or Contribution................................. 65 2. Article 28 and Forum Non Conveniens Dism issal.................................... 67 3. Jurisdiction Based on Where the CarrierHas a Place of Business Through Which Contact Was M ade ....................................... 68 J. ARTICLE 29 LIMITATIONS PERIOD Is NOT SUBJECT TO TOLLING .................................... 69 K. LIABILITY FOR DELAY UNDER ARTICLE 19 ........ 69 L. LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 18 FOR LUGGAGE AND CARGO Loss OR DAMAGE ....................... 70 M. REMOVABILITY OF WARSAW CONVENTION CASE 73 N. APPLICATION OF WARSAW CONVENTION TO CARRIER'S AGENTS OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS .................................. 74 IV. LAW APPLICABLE TO AIRCRAFT DISASTERS OCCURRING ON WATER OR ON OFFSHORE PLATFO RM S ....................................... 74 A. TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF DOHSA's APPLICATION. 74 B. DOHSA's APPLICATION BASED ON LOCATION OF THE M ISCONDUCT ............................... 78 V. NON-WARSAW CONVENTION LIABILITY OF AIRLINES AND AIRCRAFT OWNERS OR O PERATO RS ....................................... 82 2000] DEVELOPMENTS IN AVIATION LIABILITY LAW 23 A. AIRLINE'S LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF COMMUTER A IRLIN E ......................................... 82 B. AIRLINE'S LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS .................................. 82 C. AIRLINE'S LIABILITY FOR REMOVAL OF A PASSENGER ...................................... 83 D. AIRLINE'S FAILURE TO RESPOND ADEQUATELY TO IN-FLIGHT MEDICAL EMERGENCIES ............... 84 E. AIRLINE'S DUTY TO TRAVEL AGENTS ............. 86 F. AIRLINE'S LIABILITY TO EMPLOYEE-PASSENGERS AND TO EMPLOYEES OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS .................................. 86 G. EFFECT OF RELEASE FROM LIABILITY ............. 87 H. LIABILITY OF AIRCRAFT OWNER .................. 87 VI. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW CLAIMS AGAINST AIRLINES UNDER THE AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT ............................ 88 A. THE ADA DOES NOT PREEMPT RUN-OF-THE-MILL STATE LAW TORT CLAIMS ....................... 89 B. ADA DOES NOT PREEMPT CLAIMS FOR INADEQUATE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE .............. 91 C. ADA AND DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS .............. 92 D. ADA DOES NOT PREEMPT ROUTINE CONTRACT C LA IM S ......................................... 93 VII. IMPLIED FEDERAL PREEMPTION BY PERVASIVE REGULATION ........................ 94 VIII. LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURERS ................ 99 A. THE 1994 GENERAL AVIATION REVITALIZATION A CT ............................................ 99 B. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ISSUES .............. 99 C. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR DEFENSE ........... 100 IX. LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES ............ 103 A. LIABILITY FOR INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF FAA REGULATION ............................... 103 B. EXCEPTION TO GOVERNMENT LIABILITY FOR DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS ..................... 103 X. LIABILITY OF FOREIGN NATIONS: THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT ....... 105 A. LIABILITY FOR A FOREIGN STATE'S TERRORIST A CTS ........................................... 105 B. LIABILITY FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ........... 106 C. No JURY TRAL UNDER THE FSIA ............... 107 XI. LIABILITY OF MAINTENANCE COMPANIES .... 107 JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE XII. JURISDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL Q UESTIO NS ....................................... 108 A. FORUM NON CONVENIENS ....................... 108 B. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION .................. 110 C. IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION ..................... 112 D. BIFURCATION OF TRIALS ........................ 114 XIII. WENDELL H. FORD AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AIR 21) ............................................ 115 A. HIGHLIGHTS OF AIR21 .......................... 115 B. AIR21's AMENDMENT TO THE DEATH ON THE H IGH SEAS ACT ................................. 118 XIV. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ........................ 121 A. IMMUNITY FOR COMMUNICATIONS MADE DURING NTSB INVESTIGATIONS .......................... 121 B. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ............................. 122 C. INSURANCE QUESTIONS .......................... 123 D. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES ............................. 123 E. N UISANCE ....................................... 124 F. FALSE CLAIMS ACT .............................. 125 G. PASSENGER LIST IS DISCOVERABLE TO CREATE CLASS FOR CLASS ACTION SUIT .................. 125 H. EXPERT TESTIMONY ............................. 126 I. INTRODUCTION IATHOUT A DOUBT, 1999 and 2000 will be remembered TIas years of remarkable developments in aviation liability law. Topping the list of major developments was the momen- tous drafting in May 1999 in Montreal, Canada of a new multi- lateral convention to govern the liability of airlines in international aviation accidents. The 1999 Montreal Conven- tion establishes a unique system of airline liability, one that is radically different from the 1929 Warsaw Convention that it will hopefully replace. It is expected that the new convention may be ratified and enter into force in the United States and other nations within a few years. Despite our more than sixty-year history with the 1929 Warsaw Convention, this treaty has continuously fascinated us with its difficult issues of treaty interpretation. Courts still grapple with such fundamental issues as the proper definition of willful mis- conduct and the circumstances under which damages for mental injuries are permitted. Only in 1999 did the Supreme Court finally resolve the issue of whether the Warsaw Conven- 2000] DEVELOPMENTS IN AVIATION LIABILITY LAW 25 tion cause of action for passenger injury or death is exclusive, an issue that had long divided the lower courts, some of which, ironically, were originally of the view that the Warsaw Conven- tion did not even create a cause of action. We have come a long way in our understanding of this deceptively complex document. Another key development in aviation law is the passage on April 5, 2000, of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Re- form Act for the 21st Century ("AIR21"), a comprehensive reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and Air- port Improvement Program, which provides substantially more money for safety programs relating to airport facilities and per- sonnel and aviation security and addresses various liability, com- petition, environmental, and passenger rights issues. Among its significant highlights is an amendment to the Death on the High Seas Act', which now permits recovery of damages for loss of a decedent's care, comfort, and companionship in aviation