Gee v. Southwest Airlines
| Decision Date | 28 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | 95-36117,95-56278,95-36188,Nos. 95-17175,s. 95-17175 |
| Citation | 110 F.3d 1400 |
| Parties | , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2533, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3962, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4580, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6779 Shirley GEE; Ryan Jeffrey Gee; Sean Paul Fong, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Shirley Gee; Patricia Seto; Samantha Seto; Corey Seto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, Southwest Airlines Company, Defendant-Appellee. Herbert H. GADBURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Foreign Corporation doing business in Oregon, Defendant-Appellee. Jan ROWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Donna COSTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.; Roe Corporation, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert J. Stumpf, Jr., Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee in No. 95-17175.
Cornish F. Hitchcock, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 95-36117.
Steven O. Rosen, Miller, Nash, Wiener, Hager & Carlsen, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee in No. 95-36117.
Douglas L. Parker and Lisel Loy, Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 95-36188.
Steven O. Rosen and James N. Westwood, Miller, Nash, Wiener, Hager & Carlsen, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee in No. 95-36188.
Robert N. Herman, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Washington, DC, as amicus curiae in support of appellant in No. 95-36188.
Debra E. Allen, Allen, Mullings & Allen, Santa Ana, CA, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 95-56278.
Jeffrey A. Worthe and John R. Hanson, Worthe, Shaver & Hanson, Santa Ana, CA, for defendants-appellees in No. 95-56278.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-03983-CW.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Donald C. Ashmanskas, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-95-00336-DCA.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Helen J. Frye, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-00433-HJF.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Gary L. Taylor, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-00660-GLT.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, THOMAS G. NELSON and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
In these actions, consolidated for argument, appellants sought damages against various airlines based on in-flight events ranging from loathsome behavior by fellow passengers to objects dropping on them from overhead bins. They appeal summary judgment grants to defendant airlines based on the preemption of the appellants' state tort claims by § 105 of the Federal Aviation Act (commonly referred to as the Airline Deregulation Act and referred to herein as the "ADA"). 1 In addition, appellant Rowley also appeals the district court's denial of a motion in limine regarding the availability of punitive damages under the Air Carrier Access Act (the "ACAA"). We affirm the district courts' preemption decisions as to Gee and Rowley, but we find that Gadbury's and Costa's tort claims are not preempted, and we therefore reverse and remand to their respective district courts. We also hold that
even if punitive damages were available under ACAA, Rowley has not alleged the type of wanton or malicious conduct necessary to support a claim for punitive damages, and we therefore affirm the district court's decision on this issue.
On August 22, 1994, Shirley Gee ("Gee") and her fellow Asian-American appellants boarded a Southwest Airlines ("Southwest") flight from Los Angeles to Oakland and sat behind a wedding party (the "Travis group"). The Travis group was noisy, and Gee asked some of the members to stop making so much noise. She also complained to a flight attendant and asked the attendant not to serve the group any more alcohol because they appeared to be intoxicated. Nevertheless, the attendant served one beer apiece to three members of the Travis group. Gee claims that after her complaint, the Travis group harassed her with racial slurs, pantomimed cocking and shooting a gun at Gee and her companions, and threatened to "get them" upon landing.
Appellants filed suit in California state court against Southwest for a variety of tort actions, including negligence per se for violation of FAA regulations against boarding or serving intoxicated passengers; negligence; negligent training and supervision; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; respondeat superior; and violating California Code provisions protecting people from threats, harassment, intimidation or assault, including those based on race. Southwest removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. The district court granted Southwest's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the claims were preempted by § 105 of the ADA.
Gadbury was a passenger on a 1993 Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") flight who alleges that during takeoff acceleration and banking, a door on a service cart swung open and struck his knee. Gadbury brought suit in Oregon state court alleging common law negligence, and Delta removed to federal district court. Delta admitted that the door opened after takeoff and that it "was not correctly latched by the flight attendants just prior to takeoff." The district court granted summary judgment for Delta, upholding a magistrate's finding that Gadbury's claim was preempted by § 105 of the ADA.
Rowley is paralyzed from the chest down and requires a motorized scooter for mobility. Prior to a flight on American in August of 1993, she advised American that she would need an aisle chair (a narrow wheelchair which can be rolled between seats) to assist her in moving from the door of the plane to her seat. American assured her that such assistance would be available. American failed to provide the aisle chair in either Dallas or Portland, in violation of the ACAA. As a result, Rowley claims she was forced to make an arduous journey to and from her seat by holding on to seats and overhead compartments while American employees watched. Rowley also requested American to return her motorized scooter to the door of the plane in Dallas and Portland, but it failed to do so. In Portland, American also failed to reassemble the scooter for her after it had been disassembled for stowage.
Rowley filed suit in district court for compensatory and punitive damages under the ACAA, and asserted several state tort claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district judge granted American's motion for summary judgment with respect to the tort claims, finding them to be expressly preempted by the ADA. Rowley also filed a motion in limine regarding the availability of damages under the ACAA, and the district court held that "federal law permits recovery of compensatory damages for violation of the ACAA, but not punitive damages."
The remaining compensatory damage claim under the ACAA was tried to a jury, which found that American did violate the ACAA by failing to provide the aisle chair and failing to return the motorized scooter to Rowley. The jury, however, awarded zero compensatory damages. Rowley appeals the summary judgment grant and the pretrial
disallowance of Rowley's punitive damage claim. 2
Costa was a passenger on a 1993 American Airlines ("American") flight who claims injuries from another passenger who opened the overhead bin upon landing, causing a suitcase to fall onto her head. The identity of the other passenger was never discovered, since American, pursuant to its routine policy, destroyed the passenger list 48 hours later. Costa brought suit in California state court against American and the "John Doe" passenger, alleging that American had violated its duty of care as a common carrier under California law, and that American's negligence in the maintenance and operation of the airplane and negligent management caused Costa's injuries. American removed the action to federal court and filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted on the basis that Costa's claims were preempted by the ADA.
We review a district court's decision regarding preemption de novo. Espinal v. Northwest Airlines, 90 F.3d 1452, 1455 (9th Cir.1996). A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996).
Each district court felt this court's decision in Harris v. American Airlines, Inc., 55 F.3d 1472 (9th Cir.1995), mandated preemption of appellants' claims. While Harris was not the first decision on the scope of ADA preemption, it was the most far-reaching. In Harris, an African-American woman sought damages for emotional distress caused by a drunk passenger's racial slurs, claiming American was negligent under state tort law for continuing to serve the inebriated passenger who was harassing her. Harris also sought recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of Oregon's Public Accommodation Act. A sharply divided Harris court held all of Harris' claims preempted by § 105 of the ADA.
In previous decisions on ADA preemption, we considered the ADA's goals of airline deregulation or looked to FAA regulations for guidance in determining the scope of preemption. West v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 995 F.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaRosa v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
...circuit has interpreted Wolens to narrow the preemptive reach of the ADA—not to expand it as asserted by UPS. See Gee v. Southwest Airlines, 110 F.3d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1997). This Court rejects the UPS reading of Wolens. Instead, this Court concludes that Morales and Wolens establish "two......
-
Air Transport v. City and County of San Francisco
...the [] statute as a guide to the scope of the state law that Congress understood would survive." Id. at 656. See Gee v. Southwest Airlines, 110 F.3d 1400, 1405-06 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that Morales must be interpreted in light of Travelers). As this Court explained in the ERISA preemption......
-
Price v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
...of the airline industry. Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 128 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir.1997). See also Gee v. Southwest Airlines, 110 F.3d 1400, 1404 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 301, 139 L.Ed.2d 232 (1997); Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 335 (5th Cir.199......
-
Vinnick v. Delta Airlines, Inc., B143427.
...injured by aircraft operations. (Id. at pp. 337-338.) The Ninth Circuit originally adopted the Hodges approach, in Gee v. Southwest Airlines (9th Cir.1997) 110 F.3d 1400, but subsequently determined that the distinction between "services" and "operations and maintenance" was unworkable. In ......
-
Chapter § 2.02 PASSENGER SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
...2d 993 (E.D. Wis. 2004) (passengers asked to leave aircraft after staring at flight attendant). Ninth Circuit: Gee v. Southwest Airlines, 110 F.3d 1400 (9th Cir. 1997) (intoxicated passenger harasses another passenger); Billing v. Houtenbos, 46 A.T.L.A. Law Reporter 269 (D. Ariz. 2003) (fli......
-
Chapter § 2A.02 PASSENGER SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
...v. Alaska Airlines, 2002 WL 1136727 (9th Cir. 2002) (confrontation between passenger and flight attendant); Gee v. Southwest Airlines, 110 F.3d 1400 (9th Cir. 1997) (intoxicated passenger harasses another passenger); Thede v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-03528-PJH (N.D. Cal. March ......
-
Current Decisions.
...and expressly overrule two of its recent decisions--Harris v. American Airlines, 55 F.3d 1472 (1995), and Gee v. Southwest Airlines, 110 F.3d 1400 The cases were state tort actions based on airline negligence--a passenger struck by a service cart pushed by a flight attendant, a passenger hi......