Date Filed: Thursday, September 1st, 2011
Status: Published/Precedential
OPINION
BYBEE, Circuit Judge:
Today we clarify that a plaintiff does not have to prove that
an airline violated an Federal Aviation Administration
(“FAA”) standard to establish that there was an “accident”
under Article 17 of the Convention of the Unification of Cer-
tain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air
(“Montreal Convention”). Because the district court held oth-
erwise, requiring the plaintiff to provide evidence the airline
had failed to meet FAA requirements in order to survive sum-
mary judgment, we reverse and remand.
I
After entering her assigned row on Icelandair Flight No.
656, Appellant Elin Phifer bent over, placed two carry-on
bags under the seat in front of hers, stood up, and struck her
head on an overhead television monitor, which was extended
in the down position. Phifer collapsed and was assisted to her
seat by her husband and an Icelandair flight attendant.
Phifer sued Icelandair in federal district court, alleging that
Icelandair was liable for her injuries under Article 17 of the
Montreal Convention, which establishes that air carriers are
liable for accidents that occur to passengers while they are
boarding, aboard, or disembarking aircraft. S. Treaty Doc. No.
106-45, *33.
PHIFER v. ICELANDAIR 16645
The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of
Icelandair because “even assuming a departure from [Icelan-
dair’s] own policies or, possibly, industry standards, [Phifer]
ha[d] still not provided any evidence that [Icelandair]’s con-
duct was in violation of any FAA [Federal Aviation Adminis-
trative] requirements,” rendering any dispute “immaterial.”
Phifer appeals.
Continued ... Read More: http://courtlistener.com/ca9/49dY/elin-phifer-v-icelandair/
No comments:
Post a Comment