Mack v. Eastern Air Lines
| Decision Date | 02 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 7941. |
| Citation | 87 F. Supp. 113 |
| Parties | MACK v. EASTERN AIR LINES, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Chester W. Mack, Boston, Mass., Lambert H. Bigelow, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Warren F. Farr, Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge & Rugg, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
This is an action by a passenger on defendant's air line bound from Boston to Washington, D. C. for damages because of defendant's failure to transport him beyond New York. Defendant has moved for summary judgment under the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 56(b), 28 U.S.C.A.
By the pleadings, admissions of plaintiff on file and affidavits attached to defendant's motion it appears that there is no dispute as to the following facts. Plaintiff purchased a ticket from Boston to Washington, D. C. for passage on Flight No. 633 on August 27, 1947. That flight was scheduled to leave Boston at 4:00 p. m. for Jacksonville and Miami, Florida, with scheduled stops at LaGuardia Field, New York at 5:05 p. m. and at Washington, D. C. at 6:37 p. m. Plaintiff was a passenger on that flight. The flight did not leave Boston until 5:34 p. m. and arrived at LaGuardia Field, New York at 6:35 p. m.
At 6:00 p. m. while Flight No. 633 was in the air en route to New York, the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center, a facility of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, issued an order stopping air traffic into Washington, D. C. until further notice due to emergency conditions. Upon the arrival of Flight No. 633 at LaGuardia Field defendant's Flight Superintendent ordered the flight to omit its scheduled stop at Washington, D. C. because of this indefinite suspension of traffic into the Washington airport. All passengers bound for Washington, D. C., including plaintiff, were requested to deplane and did so. Flight No. 633 departed from LaGuardia Field for Jacksonville at 7:13 p.m. Plaintiff refused a refund of the one-way fare from New York to Washington, D. C. and demanded that defendant pay him $30.80, being the amount of the full fare from Boston to Washington, D. C. plus hotel and telephone expenses.
Thereafter he brought this suit in which he set forth three causes of action: Count 1, in tort, alleging that defendant negligently failed to apprise him that the flight to Washington might not be completed and that defendant negligently failed to carry him beyond New York; Count 2, in tort, alleging that defendant negligently refused to complete the air passage to Washington, D. C.; and Count 3, in contract, alleging breach of contract to carry plaintiff to Washington, D. C.
At the argument on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, plaintiff said he was prepared to show first, that the defendant did not act reasonably in that it failed to inform plaintiff in Boston of the weather conditions and likelihood of no stop in Washington, D. C.; second, that defendant acted unreasonably in New York in requiring Washington passengers to deplane at LaGuardia Field. Plaintiff also stated that he was prepared to show that within an hour after the plane left LaGuardia Field weather conditions in Washington, D. C. were excellent and it would have been practicable for the defendant to have carried him from LaGuardia Field to Washington, D. C. virtually as scheduled.
It takes no extended discussion to show that defendant is entitled to the summary judgment for which it asks and that plaintiff's contentions are entirely devoid of merit.
Section 403 of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 49 U.S.C.A. § 483, provides for the filing, posting and publishing of tariffs by air carriers and requires that contracts of carriage shall correspond to such tariffs. Pursuant to that provision of law defendant before August 27, 1947 filed, posted and published Local and Joint Passenger Rules Tariff No. PR-2. Paragraph 2(A) of these Rules Tariff provided that the Rules contained therein "shall constitute the terms and conditions upon which each participating carrier furnishes, or agrees to furnish, transportation at such fares and charges, to the same extent as if such Rules were included as terms and conditions in the contract of carriage and expressly agreed to by the passengers". Rule 11(A) and (B) of the Rules Tariff provided:
"(A) Liability of participating carriers.
Except to the extent provided in paragraphs (B) and (C) of this Rule, no participating carrier shall be liable for failing to operate any flight according to schedule or for changing the schedule of any flight, with or without notice to the passenger.
"(B) Options of passengers and carriers — General.
Except as provided in paragraph (C) of this Rule, whenever any participating carrier fails to operate any flight according to schedule, or changes the schedule of any flight, or cancels the reservation of any passenger pursuant to Rule 13(A), said carrier will, at the request of the passenger, —
(1) Transport the passenger on the next flight on which space is available;
(2) Endorse the unused portion of his ticket for purposes of rerouting;
(3) Refund an amount determined in accordance with Rule 15(a) upon surrender of the unused portion of his ticket * * *
(4) If the carrier so elects, reroute the passenger, or secure for him accommodations by other means of transportation." Paragraph (C) of the Rule deals with the options of passengers and carriers when the passenger misses a connecting flight on which space has been reserved, and is inapplicable to the present case. Rule 14 of the Rules Tariff provided in its pertinent parts as follows:
"(A) General. Each participating carrier reserves the right to refuse to transport, or to remove at any point,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lichten v. Eastern Airlines
...were carried. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Brothers & Co., 256 U.S. 566, 41 S.Ct. 584, 65 L.Ed. 1094. Mack v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., D.C.Mass., 87 F.Supp. 113. The question presented is thus one of the validity of these By Sections 1002(a), (d), and (g) of the Civil Aeronautics A......
-
North American Phillips Corp. v. Emery Air Freight Corp.
...Lines, Inc., 310 F.Supp. 844, 846 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Rosch v. United Air Lines, 146 F.Supp. 266, 267 (S.D.N.Y.1956); Mack v. Eastern Air Lines, 87 F.Supp. 113, 115 (D.Mass. 1949). Regardless of the rationale, it is clear that a carrier's valid federal tariffs which are applicable to the shipme......
-
Randolph v. American Airlines, Inc.
...in transportation have also been sustained. Jones v. Northwest Airlines, inc., 1945, 22 Wash.2d 863, 157 P.2d 728; Mack v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., D.C.1949, 87 F.Supp. 113; Furrow & Co. v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.1952, 102 F.Supp. It has been specifically held that liability of an air ......
-
Crowell v. Eastern Air Lines
...such a tariff. Air Lines cites in its brief Jones v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 1945, 22 Wash.2d 863, 157 P.2d 728; Mack v. Eastern Airlines, D.C.1949, 87 F.Supp. 113; and Furrow & Co. v. American Air Lines, D.C. 1951, 102 F.Supp. 808. In these cases the claims arose out of delays in flight ......