Pierre v. Eastern Air Lines, Civ. A. 1190-55

Decision Date27 June 1957
Docket NumberCiv. A. 1190-55,843-54
PartiesMargaret PIERRE, also known as Margaret Alexander, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN AIR LINES, Inc., Defendant. Margaret PIERRE, also known as Margaret Alexander, Plaintiff, v. Cecil C. FOXWORTH, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Greenbaum & Greenbaum, Newark, N. J., John F. Smith, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Shanley & Fisher, Frederick B. Lacey, Newark, N. J., for defendants.

Chester A. Weidenburner, Newark, N. J., Earl E. Pollock, Washington, D. C., Stanley D. Metzger and Richard B. Bilder, Washington, D. C., for the United States.

MEANEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff has moved to strike out the affirmative defenses of both defendants, each setting forth as such affirmative defense Article 22(1) of the so-called Warsaw Convention, 49 Stat. 3019. Article 22 establishes a limitation of the amount of recovery to be had in actions for damages sustained in an international flight to the sum of approximately $8,300. First to be considered is the case against the carrier.

Reduced to its simplest terms the question raised by the motion is whether such limitation is violative of the constitutional provision of the VIIth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which preserves the right of trial by jury.

In considering this question, it is necessary to keep in mind Article VI of the Constitution which provides as follows: "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Article II, section 2, of the Constitution sets forth the method of making treaties, such power being placed in the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the senators present concur.

The Warsaw Convention regulates and applies to all international transportation of persons, baggage, or goods performed by aircraft for hire. Its purpose is to unify rules for international air traffic and to facilitate such traffic. The United States is not a signatory to the Convention but has declared its adherence to the provisions thereof by a Declaration of Adherence, advised by the Senate, and deposited at Warsaw on July 31, 1934. With congressional implementation it entered into force for the United States on October 29, 1934. The Convention therefore, for all intents and purposes, has the general effect of a treaty. It may be well to state at this juncture that the Warsaw Convention provides that each passenger on an international flight (or in case of death, the personal representative of the passenger) shall receive provable damages against the carrier to the extent of an international gold standard of approximately $8,300, in case of ordinary negligence. The carrier must pay this without any showing of negligence or fault unless it (the carrier) can prove that it and its servants were free from all fault. In the event that the passenger can prove an exceptional or gross degree of negligence on the part of the carrier or its servants, the passenger may recover all provable damages without limitation.

It is well settled that no article or term of a treaty may nullify any guarantee of a right preserved by constitutional provision to our citizens. No treaty may authorize what the Constitution forbids. Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 10 S.Ct. 295, 33 L.Ed. 642. See, also, State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S.Ct. 382, 64 L.Ed. 641; United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L. Ed. 255; United States v. State of Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 46 S.Ct. 298, 70 L.Ed. 539; United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc., 348 U.S. 296, 75 S.Ct. 326, 99 L.Ed. 329.

The court is faced with two constitutional provisions and asked to determine whether there is conflict between the express pronouncement of one and an agreement entered into under authority of the other. If the limitation of damages under the Warsaw Convention is in contravention of the preservation of the right to trial by jury, as set forth in Amendment VII to the Constitution of the United States, it must yield to the specific declaration of the Bill of Rights.

Just what is included in the general term "trial by jury"? It includes the essential elements of a jury trial as they were recognized in this country and in England when the Constitution was adopted. The basic elements were that the jury should consist of twelve men, neither more nor less; that the jury should be the trier of facts; that the trial should be in the presence of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • In re W.R. Grace & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • June 11, 2012
    ...heart of the [Seventh Amendment] is to decide what constitutes the province of the jury as trier of the facts[.]" Pierre v. E. Air Lines, 152 F. Supp. 486, 488 (D.N.J. 1957). In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), the Supreme Court of the United States stated that suits at......
  • Payne v. Dewitt
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1999
    ...(quoting from Mitchell, supra at 45-46 n. 8); Sunray DX Oil Co. v. Brown, 1970 OK 183, 477 P.2d 67, 70. 18. See Pierre v. Eastern Air Lines, 152 F.Supp. 486, 488 (D.N.J.1957) ("At common law the assessment of damages in a default . . . was not considered a function of the jury and stood upo......
  • In re W.R. Grace & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • January 30, 2012
    ...heart of the [Seventh Amendment] is to decide what constitutes the province of the jury as trier of the facts[.]" Pierre v. E. Air Lines, 152 F. Supp. 486, 488 (D.N.J. 1957). In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), the Supreme Court of the United States stated that suits at......
  • In re W.R. Grace & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • June 27, 2012
    ...heart of the [Seventh Amendment] is to decide what constitutes the province of the jury as trier of the facts[.]” Pierre v. E. Air Lines, 152 F.Supp. 486, 488 (D.N.J.1957). In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989), the Supreme Court of the Unit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT