Rodriguez v. American Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 869-71. |
| Citation | 386 F. Supp. 78 |
| Parties | Ana R. Costas RODRIGUEZ, in her own behalf and as mother with "patria potestas" over the child Danielle Marie Conway, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Edwin V. Rosas-Bayonet, San Juan, P. R., for plaintiff.
Francisco Ponsa Feliu, San Juan, P. R., for defendant.
This diversity action is before this Court pursuant to defendant's motion for summary judgment, wherein it is alleged that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The decisive issue before the Court is whether plaintiff's complaint can stand, notwithstanding the Passenger Tariff of defendant approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board. This tariff includes a provision which deals with the acceptance of children for transportation. Rule 25 of the Tariff reads as follows:
The complaint filed by the herein plaintiffs include factual allegations which, for the purpose of the present consideration, are not disputed by the defendant. Said allegations as supplemented by affidavits filed by plaintiffs, are the following:
1) William D. Conway and Ana R. Costas Rodríguez were married in 1964 at Ponce, Puerto Rico.
2) That in said marriage a child named Danielle Marie Conway was procreated in June 25, 1965.
3) That William D. Conway and Ana R. Costas Rodríguez were divorced and that the latter person has at all times exercised the custody and "patria potestas" of said child as per Court Decree entered.
4) That during the period of vacation months of July and August 1971, plaintiff Danielle Marie Conway, was sent to Dallas, Texas where Mr. William D. Conway resides.
5) That on August 28, 1971, the girl was forwarded back to her mother in Puerto Rico from Dallas, Texas in American Airlines Flight Number 98, coupon issued on August 26th, Serial Number XXX-XX-X-XXXXXX of total value paid for of $131.65.
6) That on said mentioned date the plaintiff child, Danielle Marie Conway was sent to Puerto Rico alone under the sole responsibility of American Airlines, its agents and employees in accordance to the terms agreed on August 26, 1971, with said mentioned defendant.
7) That the defendant assumed all the responsibility regarding the custody and care and delivery of the said mentioned plaintiff child to her mother in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
8) That plaintiff Ana R. Costas Rodríguez was awaiting for the delivery of her child by defendant company on a fixed day, fixed hour and fixed number of flight, at San Juan International Airport.
9) That to the astonishment of plaintiff Ana R. Costas Rodríguez, the then six year old girl was not delivered at the Airport of San Juan, Puerto Rico, at the hour of flight above mentioned and none of the personnel of American Airlines could give facts regarding the whereabouts of the said child.
10) That the chief stewardess in charge of the delivery of the child in San Juan, Puerto Rico and the others, denied to plaintiff Ana R. Costas Rodríguez having any child under their custody.
11) That in view of the circumstances, plaintiff Ana R. Costas Rodríguez made a call to Dallas, Texas to the father of the child regarding the non-delivery and the whereabouts of the girl.
12) That the mental anguish of plaintiff Ana R. Costas Rodríguez went "increscendo" in view of the fact that her exhusband and father of the child told her that he personally delivered the girl to the chief stewardess of that particular flight, who acting within the scope of her employment accepted the responsibility of delivery of the child to her mother at San Juan, Puerto Rico.
13) That papers with proper identification and passenger's ticket stating the fact that plaintiff Danielle Marie Conway was an unaccompanied child were prepared and affixed to her outer garment.
14) That the child was later boarded on an Eastern Airlines flight bound for San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Were we to synthesize the factual allegations made by the plaintiffs, said allegations would be the following: On August 28, 1971, coplaintiff Danielle Marie Conway, a minor child of six years, was forwarded unaccompanied, in American Airlines flight number 98. The flight's route established a departure from Dallas, Texas, an intermediate stop at Kennedy Airport in New York and a final destination stop in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Both defendant and plaintiffs complied with Rule 25, for unaccompanied children, except that defendant, American Airlines, Inc., upon making the intermediate stop at Kennedy Airport in New York disembarked the child and left her alone and neglected at the airport; thus failing to deliver the child to her mother as scheduled. The child was later found in Kennedy Airport and boarded on an Eastern Airlines flight bound for San Juan, Puerto Rico.
It is the contention of the defendant, American Airlines, Inc., that Section D of Rule 25 of the Passengers Tariff of American Airlines, approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board, relieves it from all responsibility. The defendant alleges that this provision limits the liability of the carrier in the same way that the rules dealing with the carriage of baggage and goods limit the liability of the Airline. To this effect, it relies on the cases of Lichten v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (2 Cir. 1951), 189 F.2d 939; Vogelsang v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2 Cir. 1962), 302 F.2d 709, cert. den. 371 U.S. 826, 83 S.Ct. 46, 9 L.Ed.2d 65 (1962); Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio App. 172, 144 N.E.2d 878 (1956); Firpi v. Pan American World Airways, 89 D. P.R. 197 (1963); Bird v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 99 D.P.R. 955 (1971). These cases stand for the proposition that the tariffs in effect are and form part of the contract of transportation between plaintiffs and defendant, and that, as such, they constitute the law between the parties and, accordingly, limit the responsibilities of the carrier.
We believe it is proper to briefly analyze a few of the cited cases. The case of Vogelsang v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., supra, dealt with a suitcase full of jewelry which was lost on transit. The defendant had failed to declare the high value of this suitcase. At that time, Delta Air Lines, Inc. had in effect a tariff, filed and approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board, which limited the loss to $100.00. The Court of Appeals ruled that the tariff applied even if there was wilful misconduct on the part of the Airline. The cases of Lichten v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., supra, and Firpi v. Pan American Airways, Inc., supra, likewise, deal with suitcases containing jewelry.2 In both cases the plaintiff did not declare the jewelry and in both cases the court upheld the validity of the tariff which limited the liability of the Airline.3
It is noteworthy to point out that these cases involve baggage and the interpretation of the validity of a tariff limiting the liability of an airline. It is reasonable to insist that a passenger declare the contents of a highly valuable suitcase since otherwise it would be very simple for anyone to defraud the airlines.
The case of Killian v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. (D.C.Wyo.1957), 150 F.Supp. 17, involved the transportation of flowers which had to be unloaded at a point prior to their destination and were consequently damaged. The airline had in effect a tariff which exempted it from...
To continue reading
Request your trial