देखो v. United Arab Airlines, S.A.A., 15 N.Y.2d 56 (1964)
r
r
When interpreting treaties like the Warsaw Convention, courts should prioritize the treaty’s overall purpose and adapt its application to modern circumstances, rather than relying on a rigid, literal interpretation of specific clauses.
r
r
Summary
r
देखो, a California resident, purchased an airline ticket through SAS (Scandinavian Airlines System) for a flight on United Arab Airlines (UAA). The flight crashed, and plaintiff sued UAA in New York, where UAA had a place of business. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether New York courts had jurisdiction under Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention, which governs international air carrier liability. The court held that New York had jurisdiction, emphasizing that the treaty’s purpose of providing a uniform remedy for passengers should be adapted to modern air travel realities. A literal interpretation would lead to an anachronistic and unfair result. The court prioritized the treaty’s intent over a strictly literal reading of the jurisdictional clause.
r
r
Facts
r
r
Plaintiff, a California resident, purchased a ticket for international air travel, including a flight on United Arab Airlines (UAA) from Jerusalem to Cairo (Flight No. 796).r
She bought the ticket through Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) in Oakland, California.r
UAA maintained a ticket office and place of business in New York City.r
Flight No. 796 crashed in Sudan, and plaintiff sustained injuries.r
Plaintiff sued UAA in New York.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
Special Term denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention.r
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that New York was not a proper jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention and dismissed the suit.r
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
r
Whether, under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, a court in New York has jurisdiction over a suit against an international air carrier when the carrier has a place of business in New York, but the plaintiff purchased the ticket through another carrier outside of New York, for a flight on the defendant carrier.r
r
r
Holding
r
r
Yes, because a modern, purposive interpretation of the Warsaw Convention allows jurisdiction in a territory where the carrier has a place of business and the ticket was purchased within the territory of a high contracting party, even if not directly through the carrier’s local office; a literal interpretation would undermine the treaty’s goal of uniform remedies and consistent treatment of passengers.r
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The court reasoned that a literal interpretation of Article 28, requiring the contract to be made