New York Law Review

Tag: International Air Travel

  • Haggard v. Pan American World Airways, 441 N.Y.S.2d 399 (1981): Consequences of Failure to Deliver Ticket Under Warsaw Convention

    Haggard v. Pan American World Airways, 441 N.Y.S.2d 399 (1981)

    Under the Warsaw Convention, an airline that fails to deliver a passenger ticket before accepting a passenger at the initial point of international travel cannot avail itself of the Convention’s liability limitations, even if a ticket is delivered later during the journey.

    Summary

    Robyn Haggard, a passenger on Pan American World Airways (Pan Am), was injured in a terrorist attack in Rome during a flight from New York to Saudi Arabia. Pan Am claimed the $75,000 liability limitation under the Warsaw Convention. The trial court found that Pan Am did not deliver a ticket to Haggard in New York and thus could not invoke the liability limitations. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that delivery in Rome was sufficient. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ticket must be delivered before the initial acceptance of the passenger for the international flight to invoke the liability limitations of the Warsaw Convention, and that the burden of proving delivery rests with the airline.

    Facts

    Robyn Haggard, a 16-year-old, was traveling on Pan Am from New York to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, with a stopover in Rome. While in Rome, the airplane was attacked by terrorists, and Haggard suffered severe burns. The trial court determined that Pan Am did not provide Haggard with a ticket before she boarded the flight in New York. Haggard sued Pan Am for injuries exceeding the Warsaw Convention’s liability limit.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court found that Pan Am’s failure to deliver a ticket in New York rendered the Warsaw Convention’s liability limitation inapplicable. The Appellate Division modified, reinstating Pan Am’s affirmative defenses and limiting the damages to $75,000, concluding that delivery of the ticket in Rome was sufficient. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for review of the factual determination regarding ticket delivery in New York.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an airline can invoke the liability limitations of the Warsaw Convention when it fails to deliver a passenger ticket before accepting the passenger at the outset of international travel, but delivers the ticket later during the journey. Whether the burden of proving delivery of the ticket rests with the airline.

    Holding

    1. No, because subdivision 2 of Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention explicitly states that “if the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability.” The delivery must occur before the initiation of the first leg of the trip.
    2. Yes, because assertion of the Convention’s liability limitations is an affirmative defense and the airline is in the best position to show delivery, having access to its own records and copies of tickets sold.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the delivery of the ticket is a prerequisite for the airline to avail itself of the Warsaw Convention’s liability limitations. This requirement stems from the contractual nature of the passenger-carrier relationship; the ticket serves as evidence of the contract and ensures that both parties are aware of the terms, including liability limitations. The court emphasized the language of Article 3(2) of the Convention, which stipulates that the liability limitations do not apply if the carrier accepts a passenger without delivering a ticket. Citing Egan v. American Airlines, the court noted that the entire trip was considered a whole, and the ticket should have been delivered at the beginning of the journey. “The contract plays a role fundamental to the objectives of the Warsaw Conference. The obligations arising from the contract between the carrier and the passenger carry out the Conference goal that the rules of limited liability be known to both parties.”

    Regarding the burden of proof, the court held that the airline, as the party asserting the affirmative defense of limited liability under the Warsaw Convention, bears the burden of proving that it delivered the ticket to the passenger. The court stated, “inasmuch as the Warsaw Convention “Mandates the limitation unless ‘the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered’, there is no need for a carrier who claims the limitation to show more than the delivery of an appropriate ticket, and travel of the passenger thereunder.” The airline has better access to records and personnel who can verify ticket delivery, while the passenger may be deceased or severely injured, making it difficult to prove non-delivery. This aligns with the general principle that the party asserting an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. The court distinguished this from cases where the passenger alleges willful misconduct by the airline, where the burden of proof rightly falls on the plaintiff.

  • Seiter v. American Airlines, 286 N.Y.S.2d 137 (1967): Adequacy of Notice Under Warsaw Convention

    286 N.Y.S.2d 137 (1967)

    Under the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier cannot avail itself of the Convention’s liability limitations if the passenger ticket fails to provide reasonably legible notice of those limitations.

    Summary

    The administrators of Mrs. Eileen Seiter’s estate sued American Airlines for wrongful death after her plane crashed. American Airlines asserted the liability limitations of the Warsaw Convention as a defense. The court considered whether the flight was “international transportation” under the Convention, and if so, whether the airline provided sufficient notice of the Convention’s liability limitations. The court found that the flight was indeed international transportation because the original ticket was for a round trip from New York to Vancouver. However, the court ultimately held that the airline could not limit its liability because the notice of the Warsaw Convention’s limitations on the ticket was printed in such small and unreadable print as to be virtually unnoticeable, thus failing to provide adequate notice to the passenger.

    Facts

    Mrs. Seiter purchased a round-trip airline ticket from New York City to Vancouver, Canada, with stopovers in Seattle and Chicago. Due to inclement weather, she took a bus from Vancouver to Seattle and obtained a refund for that portion of the flight. She then boarded her originally scheduled flight from Seattle to Chicago. Missing her connection in Chicago, she received a new ticket from Northwest Airlines for an American Airlines flight to New York. The American Airlines flight crashed while landing at La Guardia Airport, resulting in Mrs. Seiter’s death. The original ticket had a footnote in extremely small print referring to the Warsaw Convention’s liability rules.

    Procedural History

    The administrators of Mrs. Seiter’s estate brought a wrongful death action against American Airlines. American Airlines asserted an affirmative defense based on the Warsaw Convention’s limitations of liability. The Special Term upheld the defense, denying the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss it. The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term’s order. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the flight from Chicago to New York City constituted “international transportation” under the Warsaw Convention, given that the original ticket was for international travel and the subsequent flight was issued in exchange for it.

    2. Whether the airline provided sufficient notice of the Warsaw Convention’s liability limitations when the ticket contained a statement regarding the Convention in exceedingly small and fine print.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the flight from Chicago to New York was performed under the original contract for international transportation, making the Convention applicable.

    2. No, because the statement regarding the Warsaw Convention on the ticket was printed in such a way as to be virtually unreadable and thus failed to provide adequate notice to the passenger.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the contract, as embodied in the original ticket, was for international transportation. Even though Mrs. Seiter took a bus from Vancouver to Seattle, the remainder of her journey was performed under the original contract, making the Warsaw Convention applicable. The court emphasized that the Convention’s emphasis on the contract “actually ‘made’ appears to have been specifically designed to prevent any subsequent intervening circumstances from affecting the result.” The court stated that the American Airlines flight was also performed under the original contract because the new ticket was part of a “complete routing” from New York to Vancouver and back, at the fare originally paid.

    Regarding notice, the court found that while the ticket contained a statement about the Warsaw Convention, the print was so small that it was “almost to defy reading.” The court determined that literal compliance with Article 3(1)(e) of the Convention was insufficient when the notice was not reasonably decipherable. The court cited Eck v. United Arab Airlines, emphasizing that a “strictly literal reading” of the Convention should be rejected, and Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, which held that similar ticket language failed to give passengers the required notice. The court emphasized the importance of providing passengers with an opportunity to protect themselves by purchasing additional insurance, quoting Lisi that “the quid pro quo for this one-sided advantage is delivery to the passenger of a ticket…which give[s] him notice” of the limited liability. The court also referenced regulations from the Civil Aeronautics Board requiring clear and conspicuous notice of liability limitations. The court concluded that, “An examination of the ticket forms which the respondent used, in the light of that policy, can only lead one to conclude that Mrs. Setter was not sufficiently apprised of the consequences which would result from the fact that her flight happened to carry her outside of the United States.”