Sethi v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, A89A0289
| Decision Date | 03 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A0289,A89A0289 |
| Parties | SETHI v. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
K.S. Sethi, pro se.
Love & Willingham, Robert P. Monyak, Daryll Love, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellant Sethi, a gentleman of Indian extraction, received word of the accidental death of his son-in-law in India; the funeral was to take place some two weeks thence. Sethi thereupon made reservations on KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) for passage from Atlanta to New Delhi via Amsterdam ten days thence. On the day of the flight he checked his baggage to New Delhi and flew to Amsterdam. There it was discovered by KLM personnel that his visa for India had expired, and he was refused permission to board the flight to New Delhi. After several days he returned to Atlanta and subsequently filed an action against KLM and its Atlanta manager, seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of the necessity of changing his plans in Amsterdam. He alleged that Atlanta KLM personnel were at fault for not ascertaining the status of his documents before allowing him to leave Atlanta.
KLM moved for summary judgment, citing the Federal tariffs which govern contracts of carriage and which expressly place on the passenger the duty of ascertaining and complying with all requirements of individual destination countries regarding travel documents. The trial court granted the motion, and Sethi appeals pro se, filing no formal enumeration of errors but alleging that genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence and breach of contract remain in the case, and that summary judgment was therefore improperly granted. Held:
Our review of the record reveals no error in the proceedings below. The cited tariffs clearly control the disposition of the case sub judice. See Section 403(a) of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C.App. § 1373(a). See also KLM's Rules Tariff No. PR-3, CAB No. 55, Rule 22, which states as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapter § 2.08 MISINFORMATION
...or other written instrument any of the terms of the contract of carriage' "). State Courts: Georgia: Sethi v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 381 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. App. 1989) (improper visas; airline tariff disclaiming liability enforced).[937] See, e.g., Four th Circuit: Weber v. USAirways, Inc., ......