Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1998
• Docket Number: 96-15791,96-15543,Nos. 96-15490,97-55115 and 97-15158,s. 96-15490
• Citation: 160 F.3d 1259
• Parties: 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8712, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1359, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,119 Cherie CHARAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Missouri corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Mildred JACOBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and John Doe, 1-10; Jane Doe, 1-10; Doe Corporations, 1-10; Doe Partners, 1-10; Doe Entities, 1-10, Defendants. Bernice GULLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES; AMR Corporation; American Eagle Airlines, Defendants-Appellees. Elizabeth NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Does 1 Through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Robert A. BEVERAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1259

160 F.3d 1259

98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8712, 99 Cal. Daily

Op. Serv. 1359,

98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,119

Cherie CHARAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Missouri corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Mildred JACOBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and John Doe, 1-10; Jane Doe, 1-10; Doe Corporations, 1-10;

Doe Partners, 1-10; Doe Entities, 1-10, Defendants.

Bernice GULLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES; AMR Corporation; American Eagle

Airlines, Defendants-Appellees.

Elizabeth NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Does 1 Through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

Robert A. BEVERAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 96-15490, 96-15543, 96-15791, 97-55115 and 97-15158.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 23, 1998.

Decided Nov. 30, 1998.

Gerald A. Clausen and Edward M. Digardi, San Francisco, California, for appellant Gulley.

Saied Kashani, Frederick A. Meiser, Jr., A Law Corp., San Diego, CA (Eugene C. Gratz, Law Offices of Eugene C. Gratz, Laguna Beach, CA, on the briefs for Charas), for appellants Charas, Jacoby, Beverage, and Newman.

Stuart J. Starry (argued), Frank, Woodfill, Lucas & Pressler, LLP, Houston, Texas, Michael S. Danko (on the brief), O'Reilly, Collins & Danko, Menlo Park, California, for appellant Beverage.

Bonnie R. Cohen and Kymberly E. Speer, Nelsen, Greenberg & Cohen, San Francisco, California, for appellees Trans World Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, and Continental Airlines.

Donna H. Kalama, Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn & Stifel, Honolulu, Hawaii, on the briefs for appellee Trans World Airlines.

Harry Carter, Higgs, Fletcher, and Mack, San Diego, California, arguing for appellee American Airlines.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-95-00504-TEH.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-00963-HG/FIY.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; D. Lowell Jensen, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-93-04044-DLJ.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-95-02530-NAJ.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D. Lowell Jensen, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-03253-DLJ.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, BROWNING, FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, THOMPSON, FERNANDEZ, RYMER, T. G. NELSON, KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:

These consolidated cases cause us to consider once again the circumstances under which the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C. app. § 1305(a)(1) ("ADA"), preempts certain state law claims. Although we have addressed the scope of this statutory preemption before, we have taken these cases en banc sua sponte to rethink our previous decisions. ¹ We now hold that in enacting the ADA, Congress intended to preempt only state laws and lawsuits that would adversely affect the economic deregulation of the airlines and the forces of competition within the airline industry. Congress did not intend to preempt passengers' run-of-the-mill personal injury claims. Accordingly, we hold that Congress used the word "service" in the phrase "rates, routes, or service" in the ADA's preemption clause to refer to the prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo, or mail. In the context in which it was used in the Act, "service" was not intended to include an airline's provision of in-flight beverages, personal assistance to passengers, the handling of luggage, and similar amenities. We expressly overrule our decisions in Harris v. American Airlines, Inc., 55 F.3d 1472 (9th Cir.1995), and Gee v. Southwest Airlines, 110 F.3d 1400 (9th Cir.1997), to the extent that they are inconsistent with this interpretation.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Beverage v. Continental Airlines

Robert A. Beverage was a passenger on a Continental Airlines flight. He claims that a flight attendant hit his shoulder with a service cart and caused him serious injuries, including a dislocated shoulder and a cracked and detached scapular prosthesis. Beverage filed a state tort claim against Continental for negligence and breach of contract. The district court concluded that the ADA preempted Beverage's claims and granted Continental's motion to dismiss. Beverage timely appealed the district court's ruling.

II. Jacoby v. Trans World Airlines

Mildred Jacoby was a passenger on Trans World Airlines. After the plane landed, another passenger opened an overhead bin and a large piece of luggage fell on Jacoby's head, causing her injuries. Jacoby filed suit in state court against TWA; the airline removed the case and filed a motion to dismiss. Finding that the ADA preempted Jacoby's claims against TWA, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. Jacoby appealed.

III. Charas v. Trans World Airlines

Cherie Charas, a passenger on a TWA flight, tripped over a piece of luggage allegedly left in the aisle by a flight attendant. Due to the fall, Charas claims that she suffered a fractured humerus and required a shoulder joint replacement. Charas sued TWA for negligence. In granting TWA's motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Charas's claims were preempted by the ADA. Charas timely appealed the district court's ruling.

IV. Gulley v. American Airlines

Bernice Gulley was a passenger aboard a small commuter airplane operated by American Airlines. Gulley has a bone condition that makes her susceptible to bone fractures. She claims that she advised American of her condition and informed the airline that she needed assistance in disembarking, but that American employees provided no help. Gulley exited the plane, unassisted, on a stairway with only a single, movable chain handhold. She alleges that she fell and sustained injuries.

Gulley brought a state negligence action against American. The district court held that although Gulley's claim for negligent failure to provide safe equipment involved the "maintenance and operation" of the aircraft and was not preempted, Gulley's claim for negligent failure to assist her down the stairs involved the rendering of "service" and was preempted by the ADA. Gulley appealed the district court's order granting American's motion for summary judgment.

V. Newman v. American Airlines, Inc.

Elizabeth Newman's complaint stems from her attempt to fly from San Diego to Long Island on an American Airlines flight. Newman claims that in making her reservations, she informed American that she was blind, suffered from a heart condition, and required assistance in boarding the plane. She flew from Long Island to San Diego without incident. However, it is alleged that on her return flight to Long Island, a flight attendant attempted to check Newman's carry-on bags due to space constraints. At that time, the flight attendant learned that the bags contained Newman's medications. The flight attendant then informed the captain that Newman might have a disability that would preclude her from flying. The captain asked the flight attendant to ask Newman about her medication and to ascertain the phone number of Newman's doctor to verify whether or not Newman was at risk for a heart attack during flight. When Newman could not remember her doctor's number, American denied her passage until she could provide a letter from her doctor certifying that it was safe for her to fly.

Prior to obtaining the required certificate, Newman was required to stay overnight at a motel and suffered injuries when she fell upon boarding the shuttle bus transporting her there. She filed various claims, including state tort claims and federal statutory claims, against American. The district court granted American's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Newman's state law claims were preempted by the ADA and that American had "permissibly refused" boarding to Newman for the purposes of her federal claims. Newman timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

I. Background

Section 1305(a)(1) of the ADA provides:

[N]o State or political subdivision thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of two or more States shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to the rates, routes, or service of any air carrier....

49 U.S.C. app. § 1305(a)(1). ²

Prior to 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board had economic regulatory authority over interstate air transportation pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 731, as amended, 49 U.S.C. app. § 1301 et seq. However, the Act did not expressly preempt state regulation, and further, it contained a "savings clause" providing that "[n]othing ... in this chapter shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies." 49 U.S.C. app. § 1506 (recodified at 49 U.S.C. § 40120(c)); see American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 222, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995). As a result, states were not prevented from enforcing their own laws, despite the economic effect on the airlines. See California v. CAB, 581 F.2d 954, 956 (D.C.Cir.1978) (holding that states were permitted to regulate intrastate airfares); Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U.S. 290, 300-01, 96 S.Ct. 1978, 48 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976) (allowing states to enforce their own laws barring deceptive trade practices).

In 1978, Congress determined that efficiency, low prices, variety, and quality would be furthered by reliance on competitive market...