Schmidkunz v. Scandinavian Airlines System, 77-3833
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before CHAMBERS and TANG; CHAMBERS |
| Citation | 628 F.2d 1205 |
| Parties | Berdelle SCHMIDKUNZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM, Kingdom of Denmark and Copenhagen Airports Authority, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 77-3833,77-3833 |
| Decision Date | 15 August 1980 |
Page 1205
v.
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM, Kingdom of Denmark and
Copenhagen Airports Authority, Defendants-Appellees.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 15, 1980.
Page 1206
Gilbert A. Thomas, Tustin, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
David S. MacCuish, McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHAMBERS and TANG, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, * District Judge.
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Schmidkunz sued the Kingdom of Denmark, the Copenhagen Airports Authority, and Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), in the Central District of California. The Airports Authority is an agency of the Kingdom of Denmark. SAS is a foreign consortium with its principal place of business in Stockholm, Sweden. Her complaint alleged negligence in the operation and maintenance of a moving walkway in the area of the passenger terminal at the Kastrup Airport at Copenhagen, which is operated by the Airports Authority. She had debarked from an airliner from the United States and was in the terminal awaiting a departure on an SAS airliner for the remainder of her trip.
The district judge dismissed Denmark and the Airports Authority for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that appellant's service of a tourism representative at the Scandinavian National Tourist Office in Los Angeles was insufficient. The district judge thereafter granted summary judgment in favor of SAS, holding that it owed appellant no duty of care with respect to
Page 1207
the operation or maintenance of the walkway.We shall discuss the dismissal of Denmark and CAA first. The motion to dismiss was supported by a detailed affidavit of the manager of the tourism office, stating that it is a joint effort of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland, and operates as a part of the embassy diplomatic missions in Los Angeles staffed by an employee (having diplomatic status) of each of the five countries except Iceland. Its purpose is to promote tourism and serve as a liaison with local tourist agencies, travel writers, tour operators, etc. The office sells nothing, receives no commissions, promotes no income, makes no reservations, organizes no tours, and "other than irregular and infrequent magazine advertisements, we engage in no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kantonides v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
...at time of accident, activity of plaintiff and control of airline to interpretation of disembarking); Schmidkunz v. Scandinavian Airlines System, 628 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir.1980) (applying assessment of total circumstances to interpretation of disembarking); Maugnie v. Compagnie Nationale Air F......
-
In re Air Crash Disaster at Gander, Newfoundland, MDL No. 683.
...F.2d 1301, 1311 n. 8 (9th Cir.1982); Abramson v. Japan Airlines Co., Ltd., 739 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1984); Schmidkunz v. Scandinavian Airlines System, 628 F.2d 1205, 1207 (9th Cir. 1980); Hill v. United Airlines, 550 F.Supp. 1048, 1054 (D. Kansas 1982); Husserl v. Swiss Air Transport Co., 351 ......
-
Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
...the scope of the Warsaw Convention), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 291, 98 L.Ed.2d 251 (1987); Schmidkunz v. Scandinavian Airlines System, 628 F.2d 1205, 1207 (9th Cir.1980) (reaching plaintiff's negligence claim after disposing of her Warsaw claim); Martinez Hernandez v. Air France......
-
Kalantar v. Lufthansa German Airlines
...facts of the case. Marotte v. American Airlines, Inc., 296 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir.2002); Schmidkunz v. Scandinavian Airlines, Inc., 628 F.2d 1205, 1207 (9th Cir.1980). While the D.C. Circuit has not provided specific guidance on the exact parameters of the term, the decisions of numerous......