Rodriguez v. American Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | 93-1804 and 93-1835.,92-1989,Civ. No. IDP 92-1789(DRD),92-1999,93-1803 |
| Citation | 886 F. Supp. 967 |
| Parties | Miguel RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Jorge Ortiz Brunet, San Juan, PR, for plaintiff.
Francisco Troncoso, Carlos & Troncoso, San Juan, PR, for consolidated plaintiff Oneida Rodríguez.
Diego A. Ramos, San Juan, PR, for AA, Executive and Island.
María Emilia Picó, Rexach & Picó, Miramar, Santurce, PR and Stephen R. Stegich III, Condon & Forsyth, New York City, for CASA Aircraft & Construcciones Aeronáuticas.
Codefendants American Airlines, Inc., and Executive Airlines Inc., have requested the Court to issue a partial summary judgment, dismissing the claim of seventeen of the eighteen plaintiffs that have filed complaints in the above consolidated cases. Plaintiffs have opposed the request and after oral argument at a hearing conducted on April 7, 1995, and filing of briefs, on the issue of preemption, the Court is ready to rule.
The referred codefendants have argued that pursuant to the choice of law rules adopted by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the case of Vda. de Fornaris v. Amer. Surety Co. of N.Y., 93 D.P.R. 29 (1966), the "dominant contacts" are with the State of New York and therefore New York Law must be applied. In the alternative, the parties above argue that the Commonwealth law has been preempted, by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, (Section 1305(a)(1) of Title 49 U.S.C.App.), or that Federal Common Law should be applied.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that under Fornaris, and Bonn v. Puerto Rico, International Airlines, Inc., 518 F.2d 89 (1st Cir.1975), Puerto Rico has the "dominant contacts" with the occurrence of the accident, and Puerto Rican substantive law must be applied. They also argue against preemption and the application of federal common law.
Moving codefendants, and plaintiffs agree, that the choice of law rules adopted by Puerto Rico, apply to the present controversy. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); Bonn v. Puerto Rico, International Airlines, Inc., supra at 91.
On June 7, 1992, a 212 CASA Aircraft operated by Executive Airlines, Inc., which was American Eagle flight 5456, crashed in the vicinity of the Eugenio María de Hostos Airport at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. American Eagle flight 5456 took off from Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport at Carolina, and ended at its destination in the City of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.
Executive Airlines, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Executive's principal place of business is located in Puerto Rico; Executive is a regional commuter carrier operating commercial aircrafts from Carolina, Puerto Rico to other islands of the Caribbean and to several other locations in Puerto Rico, including the City of Mayaguez.
Plaintiffs' principal in law, Miguel A. Rodríguez, Jr., boarded flight 5456 in Carolina, Puerto Rico and was proceeding to Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. The flight was purely domestic normally within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The aircraft CASA 212 operated by Executive Airlines, Inc., under the trade name of American Eagle was maintained, serviced, fueled and operated by the employees and pilots of Executive Airlines, Inc., in the island of Puerto Rico.
Codefendant American Airlines, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at Dallas, Texas.
Codefendant CASA USA, INC., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C.
Codefendant Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A., is a corporation organized under the laws of a state or country other than the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with its principal place of business in Madrid, Spain.
Plaintiffs Denisse Rodríguez Carrasquillo, James Figueroa Vélez, Keith Jiménez Vélez, Nicomedes Figueroa Vélez, Luz Saba Vélez Cucuta, Luz Marina Cucuta Irizarry, and Ana Carrasquillo Alverio2, are all residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where they have been domiciled since before the date that the consolidated captioned complaints were filed in the instant case.
Miguel A. Rodríguez and Ryan Michael Rodríguez were residents domiciled in the State of Connecticut on the date in which their complaint was filed in the instant case. Efraín Vélez Cucuta is a permanent resident domiciled in the State of Florida, on the date in which the complaint was filed in the instant case.
Evelyn, Nancy and Luis Rodríguez Carrasquillo were residents of the State of New York, on the date that the complaint was filed in the instant case. Jeffrey Rodríguez, Socorro Vélez Cucuta, and Ricardo Vélez Ríos were residents of the State of New York on the date the complaint was filed.
The injuries sustained by decedent Miguel A. Rodríguez, Jr., occurred in the Municipality of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico at the time in which American Eagle flight 5456 crashed, on June 7, 1992, while an approach was being attempted at Eugenio María de Hostos Airport. The pilots that were in the aircraft that crashed were Captain Alton E. Leslie and Joseph E. Dishler, none of which were residents of the State of New York.
Decedent Miguel A. Rodríguez, Jr., was a resident of the State of New York, and plaintiff Oneida Rodríguez, decedent's widow was also a resident of the State of New York, on the date her complaint was filed in the above captioned consolidated cases.
A United District Court sitting in a diversity case must apply the choice of law rules of the Forum State, Jiménez Puig v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 574 F.2d 37, 40 (1st Cir.1978); González Y Camejo v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 313 F.Supp. 1011, 1013 (District Court of Puerto Rico 1970).3
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as Forum State has adopted the dominant contact rules of choice of law, incorporating the enumerated criteria of dominant contacts contained in Restatement Second of Conflict of Law (1971) particularly sections 145, 175, and 178 of the Restatement. Fornaris v. Amer. Surety Co., supra, p. 47; Bonn v. Puerto Rico International Airlines, Inc., supra, p. 91. Section 145 sets forth broad and general principles that govern a choice of law analysis while sections 175 and 178 reveal the breath of the applications of these principles in wrongful death cases. Sections 175 and 178 incorporate into the analysis "a presumption that the local law of the state where the injury occurred should govern unless another state has a more significant relationship to the occurrence or to the parties". Foster v. United States, 768 F.2d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir.1985). The First Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted in Bonn, supra, p. 91-92, that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the case of Fornaris v. Amer. Surety Co., supra, recognized section 175 of the Restatement as part of the dominant contacts analysis under Puerto Rican substantive law. Bonn further holds that under Section 175 of the Restatement the place of conduct and injury are to be considered among the dominant contacts in the choice of law principles applied by the Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in Fornaris.
The dominant contacts that arise from the facts of the instant case, favor the law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is the place of injury, the place of the conduct imputed to codefendants by plaintiffs regarding the operation, maintenance, installment of the beta blocking device and/or testing, or maintenance of same in the CASA 212 aircraft (flight 5456). The regional commuter having control of the airplane is a corporation with its principal place of business in Puerto Rico. The accidental flight took place within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. All the parties in the above captioned consolidated cases allege that the conduct, defect, and cause of the accident that took place upon approach to the Eugenio María de Hostos Airport on June 7, 1992, occurred within the boundaries of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has valid interest in regulating an accident that occurs within its boundaries and involving an airplane controlled and maintained by a party whose principal place of business is Puerto Rico.
Applying the choice of law rules of the forum state to the facts and dominant contacts in the instant case, this Court has no other alternative but to determine that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has a more significant relationship to the occurrence of the accident and the parties than the state of New York.
The Court now addresses the second issue raised by codefendant American Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc., preemption.
The test for federal preemption over state law of Puerto Rico is identical to the test under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, for preemption of the law of any state of the Union. (Statutory Laws of the United States Generally "have the same force and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States"). Examining Bd. of Engrs., Architects & Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 596, 96 S.Ct. 2264, 2278, 49 L.Ed.2d 65 (1976); Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 675, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2087, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974); P.R. Department of Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum, 485 U.S. 495, 499, 108 S.Ct. 1350, 1352, 99 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988):
"Although Puerto Rico has a unique status in our federal system (citations omitted), the parties have assumed and we agree, that the test for federal preemption of the law of Puerto Rico at issue here is the same as the test under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, Cl 2, for preemption of the law of the state."
In Puerto Rico...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Flores-Galarza
... ... Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992); cf. United States v ... Airlines, Inc., 128 F.3d 77, 82, 84-85 (2d Cir.1997)), and personal injury claims ( Rodríguez v. American Airlines, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 967, 971 (D.Puerto Rico 1995)) ... Post- Morales cases ... ...
-
Deerskin Trading Post, Inc. v. Ups of America
... ... Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 2037, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992) (quoting BLACK'S LAW ... Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992), and American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 115 ... Page 670 ... S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 ... Id. at 182. Finally, in Rodriguez v. American Airlines, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 967 (D.P.R.1995), the district court held only that state ... ...
-
Jimenez–ruiz v. Spirit Airlines Inc.
... ... [794 F.Supp.2d 345] Richard SchellAsad, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.Diego A. Ramos, Carlos J. RuizIrizarry, Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, P.S.C., San Juan, PR, for Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER GUSTAVO A. GELP, District Judge. Plaintiff Jaime JimenezRuiz (Plaintiff or Jimenez) filed a ... American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 223, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995) (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, ... ...
- Bonollo Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. Town of Franklin, 94 Civ. 10808 (MEL).
-
As the Drone Flies: How to Think About Property Ownership, Federal Preemption, and Airspace Control in the Era of Remotely Piloted Aircraft
...(E.D. Mich. 2013); Mennella v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 824 Fed. App'x. 696 (11th Cir. 2020); but see, e.g., Rodriguez v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 967 (D.P.R. 1995) (state personal injury claims grounded on safety or lack thereof are not "related to" "services" for purposes of preemption......