Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd, 87-1055
Decision Date | 18 April 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 87-1055,87-1055 |
Citation | 490 U.S. 122,109 S.Ct. 1676,104 L.Ed.2d 113 |
Parties | Elisa CHAN, et al., Petitioners v. KOREAN AIR LINES, LTD |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case involves wrongful death actions against Korean Air Lines, Ltd. (KAL), by survivors of persons killed when one of its planes was destroyed by a Soviet aircraft. All parties agree that their rights are governed by the multilateral treaty known as the Warsaw Convention, which provides a per passenger damages limitation for personal injury or death. A private accord among airlines known as the Montreal Agreement requires carriers to give notice of this limitation to passengers in print size no smaller than 10-point type. Since KAL's notice to passengers on the flight in question appeared in only 8-point type, plaintiffs moved for a partial summary judgment declaring that the discrepancy deprived KAL of the benefit of the damages limitation. The District Court denied the motion, finding that neither the Convention nor the Agreement prescribes elimination of the limitation as the sanction for failure to provide the required form of notice. The Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal.
Held: International air carriers do not lose the benefit of the Warsaw Convention's damages limitation if they fail to provide notice of that limitation in passenger tickets. The Montreal Agreement concededly does not impose such a sanction, and the Convention's plain language also does not direct that result. Interpreting the second sentence of Article 3(2) of the Convention which subjects a carrier to unlimited liability only for the nondelivery of a passenger ticket—to apply to the failure to provide an "adequate" statement of notice of the damages limitation conflicts with the language of the first sentence of Article 3(2), which specifies that "[t]he . . . irregularity . . . of the . . . ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the [transportation] contract." Such an interpretation of the text would also entail the unlikely result that even a minor defect in a ticket, totally unrelated to adequate notice, would eliminate the liability limitation. That defective compliance with the notice provision does not void the damages limitation is confirmed by comparing Article 3(2) with other Convention provisions, which specifically impose that sanction for failure to include the notice of liability limitation in baggage checks and air waybills for cargo. Although the Convention's drafting history might be consulted to elucidate a text that is ambiguous this Court has no power to insert an amendment into a treaty where the text is clear. Pp. 125-135.
265 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 829 F.2d 1171, affirmed.
Gilton G. Sincoff, for petitioners.
Richard J. Lazarus, Urbana, Ill., for U.S. as amicus curiae supporting the petitioners, by special leave of Court.
George N. Tompkins, Jr., New York City, for respondent.
This case presents the question whether international air carriers lose the benefit of the limitation on damages for passenger injury or death provided by the multilateral treaty known as the Warsaw Convention if they fail to provide notice of that limitation in the 10-point type size required by a private accord among carriers, the Montreal Agreement.
On September 1, 1983, over the Sea of Japan, a military aircraft of the Soviet Union destroyed a Korean Air Lines, Ltd. (KAL), Boeing 747 en route from Kennedy Airport in New York to Seoul, South Korea. All 269 persons on board the plane perished. Survivors of the victims filed wrongful-death actions against KAL in several Federal District Courts, all of which were transferred for pretrial proceedings to the District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. All parties agree that their rights are governed by the Warsaw Convention, a multilateral treaty governing the international carriage of passengers, baggage, and cargo by air. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, T.S. No. 876 (1934), reprinted in note following 49 U.S.C.App. § 1502.
The present controversy centers on the per passenger damages limitation for personal injury or death. This was fixed at approximately $8,300 by the Convention, but was raised to $75,000 by the Montreal Agreement, an agreement among carriers executed (and approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)) in 1966, and joined by KAL in 1969. Agreement Relating to Liability Limitations of the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol, CAB Agreement 18900, note following 49 U.S.C.App. § 1502 (approved by CAB Order E-23680, May 13, 1966, 31 Fed.Reg. 7302). In addition to providing for a higher damages limitation, this agreement required carriers to give passengers written notice of the Convention's damage limitations in print size no smaller than 10-point type. The notice of the Convention's liability rules printed on KAL's passenger tickets for the flight in question here appeared in only 8-point type. By motion for partial summary judgment, plaintiffs sought a declaration that this discrepancy deprived KAL of the benefit of the damages limitation.
On July 25, 1985, the District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion, finding that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement prescribes that the sanction for failure to provide the required form of notice is the elimination of the damages limitation. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 664 F.Supp. 1463. Its opinion specifically considered and rejected contrary Second Circuit precedent. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March 14, 1980, 705 F.2d 85, cert. denied sub nom. Polskie Linie Lotnicze v. Robles, 464 U.S. 845, 104 S.Ct. 147, 78 L.Ed.2d 138 (1983). On September 24, 1985, the District Court certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1982 ed., Supp IV) the question whether KAL "is entitled to avail itself of the limitation of damages provided by the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Agreement despite its defective tickets." The District of Columbia Circuit allowed the appeal and (following a remand of the record for clarification of the scope of the District Court's order) affirmed, adopting the District Court's opinion in full. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 265 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 829 F.2d 1171 (1987). We granted certiorari, 485 U.S. 986, 108 S.Ct. 1288, 99 L.Ed.2d 499 (1988), to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals.
Petitioners concede that by itself the Montreal Agreement imposes no sanction for failure to comply with its 10-point type requirement.1 They argue, however, that such a re- quirement is created by reading the Montreal Agreement in conjunction with the Warsaw Convention. This argument proceeds in two steps. First, petitioners assert that Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention removes the protection of limited liability if a carrier fails to provide adequate notice of the Convention's liability limitation in its passenger tickets. Second, they contend that the Montreal Agreement's 10-point type requirement supplies the standard of adequate notice under Article 3. Because we reject the first point, we need not reach the second.2
Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention provides:
Although Article 3(1)(e) specifies that a passenger ticket shall contain "[a] statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention," nothing in Article 3 or elsewhere in the Convention imposes a sanction for failure to provide an "adequate" statement. The only sanction in Article 3 appears in the second clause of Article 3(2), which subjects a carrier to unlimited liability if it "accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered." Several courts have equated nondelivery of a ticket, for purposes of this provision, with the delivery of a ticket in a form that fails to provide adequate notice of the Warsaw limitation. See In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana, on July 9, 1982, supra; In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March 14, 1980, 705 F.2d 85 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Polskie Linie Lotnicze v. Robles, 464 U.S. 845, 104 S.Ct. 147, 78 L.Ed.2d 138 (1983); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.
...In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171, 1176 (D.C.Cir.1987), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 109 S.Ct. 1676, 104 L.Ed.2d 113 (1989) (holding that “the law of a transferor forum on a federal question ... does not have stare decisis effect......
-
Bossier Parish School Bd. v. Reno, Civ. A. No. 94-1495 (LHS (USCA)
...panels, see In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171, 1176 (D.C.Cir.1987), aff'd sub nom. Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 109 S.Ct. 1676, 104 L.Ed.2d 113 (1989), we certainly can be persuaded by them, particularly given the three-judge constitution of these panels and th......
-
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT STAPLETON INTERN.
...F.2d 515, 520-21 (9th Cir.1988); In re Korean Airlines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171, 1174 (D.C.Cir.1987), aff'd sub nom., ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1676, 104 L.Ed.2d 113 (1989) (discussing law of the case doctrine applicable to multidistrict IV. CASES NOT CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL. The foregoing disc......
-
In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig.
...re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983 , 829 F.2d 1171, 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom. Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd. , 490 U.S. 122, 109 S.Ct. 1676, 104 L.Ed.2d 113 (1989).c. Analysis and ConclusionAs in Mink , the Plaintiffs bring state common-law claims for failure to warn.......
-
Chapter § 2A.04 AIR CARRIER LIABILITY
...508 (2d Cir. 1966), aff'd 390 U.S. 455, 88 S. Ct. 1193, 20 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1968). See also: Supreme Cour t: Chan v. Korean Airlines, Ltd., 109 S. Ct. 1676, 104 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1989) (failure to use at least ten point type does not nullify damage limitation). Second Circuit: In re Aircrash Disa......
-
Personal Jurisdiction, Process, and Venue in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
...1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1175-76 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (involving § 1407 transfer), aff’d sub nom on other grounds, Chan v. Korean Air Lines, 490 U.S. 122 (1989); see also Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40-41 (2d Cir. 1993); Center Cadillac, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 808 F. Supp. 213......
-
Here Lions Roam: Cisg as the Measure of a Claim's Value and Validity and a Debtor's Dischargeability
...v. Cloer, 569 U.S. 369, 381 (2013); Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992).162. Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 134 (1989); see also The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat. 1, 71 (1821) ("[T]o alter, amend, or add to any treaty, by inserting any clause, whether ......
-
ONLY WHERE JUSTIFIED: TOWARD LIMITS AND EXPLANATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.
...for the district courts within a circuit, only by the court of appeals for that circuit."), aff'd sub nom. Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 135 (22) United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 162 (1984). (23) I note, however, that some debate exists regarding the propriety of faci......