Air Carrier Liability - Case Study Example

Air Carrier Liability Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 28th February, 2012 Introduction Patrick Dalton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Delta Airlines, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Duly authorized to Transact Business in the State Offlorida, Defendant-appellee is a air carrier negligence case. In the case, Delta Airlines had been sued with negligence that led to the death of greyhound racing dogs it was transporting for the defendant. When the case was first brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Dalton the plaintiff was seeking compensation and exemplary damages for the negligence leading to the death of his dogs. Dalton identified the defendant as the as Delta Airline, the previous transporter of the Dogs, Irish airlines had delivered them in good order to Delta Airlines. According to Dalton the dogs died in the care of Delta airlines as the airline failed to ensure their safety. In the District court the district court found the plaintiff had failed to give timely written notice to Delta Airlines as required by Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention, 49 U.S.C & 1502 which is concerned with the transport of Cargo by Air. The district court agreed with the Defendants argument and dismissed the appeal on the grounds that Mr. Dalton had failed to give written notice within 7 days of receiving the dead greyhounds instead he had waited 20 days to issue the notice. However, Mr. Dalton was not satisfied with this interpretation of the Warsaw convention and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. The appeal to this case is the subject of analysis for this paper. Facts of the Case Mr. Patrick Dalton was a trainer of racing dogs and he set out to transport a number of Greyhound from Ireland to a Greyhound race in Miami. Mr. Dalton is an Irish Citizen. On August 9th 1973, the dogs were dispatched on an Irish Airlines flight from Shannon to Boston. Irish Airlines delivered the dogs to Boston alive and in good condition. On August 10th 1973, the dogs were handed over to Delta Airlines for transportation to Miami. The Dogs were alive and in good health. Delta airlines is licensed in the US State of Florida. When the dogs arrived in Miami they were pronounced death. An autopsy by a Miami Veterinarian revealed that the dogs had died of suffocation. The carcasses of the three dogs were destroyed. At a State of Florida District court the plaintiff sued Delta airlines for negligence resulting in the death of the greyhounds. The defendant was seeking compensation for the death and also exemplary damages for the income he would have obtained if the dog made it to Miami alive and participated in the race. Both parties agreed that the Warsaw convention, 49 U.S.C was the most relevant legislation to apply in this case as the greyhounds were being transported by air. Delta airlines did not contest that they had acted negligently. Delta airlines instead contended it had received notice of suit 20 days after the dogs had died instead of the 7 days required by the Warsaw Convention. The District court agreed with Delta’s argument and granted summary judgment of the case. Dalton disagreed with this ruling and decided to appeal. Legal issue The first legal issue found in this case is concerned with the liability of an air carrier for damage, loss or destruction of goods during the period of transportation by air. Liability for damage, loss or destruction of Air cargo is governed by Article 18 of the Warsaw Convention (Tompkins, 2010). In this case the defendant does not seem to contest that damage or destruction of the Cargo occurred under his care. From the facts outlined above, the legal issue discovered in the case is about liability for negligence where a party has not issued a timely written notice. Under Clause 26 (C) of the Warsaw Convention where a person issues notice of later than 7 days upon receiving damaged or delayed good they cannot be able to claim compensation for the goods (Milde and Mah, 1996). The issue examined in this case is whether this clause extends to goods that have been destroyed instead of getting lost or delayed. Rule of law Article 18 (1) of the Warsaw convention creates a rebuttable presumption of liability on the part of the carrier when dealing with issues of air cargo damage, loss or destruction. Article 18 (1) places the liability for damage as a consequence of damaged, lost or destroyed Cargo on the carrier, if the event that led to the damage took place in the duration of air transport (Tompkins, 2010). Thus, in our case the burden of proof that the dogs didn’t die due to the airlines negligence lies with Delta airlines. Article 26 (2) of the Warsaw convention is the rule of law that is used to deal with issues of compensation for goods transported by air. The section states “In case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within 3 days from the date of receipt in the case of baggage and 7 days from the date of receipt in the case of goods” (Tompkins, 2010). Precedents In the cases of Grey v. American Airlines, Inc., S.D.N.Y., 1950, 95 F. Supp. 756; Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Pan American Airways, Inc., S.D.N.Y., 1944, 58 F. Supp. 338 it was established that the Warsaw convention is binding on carriers licensed in the United States. Indeed, the Warsaw convention was recognized by over 150 states and allowed to deal with damage liability issues on international flights. In the case of Lady Marlene Brassiere corp. v. Irish International airlines, 13 Avi 17, 428 (Civil Ct. N.Y Cty. 1971), the issue of written notices for damage and lost goods was tackled (Tompkins, 2010). The ruling noted that an actual notice of damage claim cannot replace a written notice. In an earlier case of Butler’s Shoe Corp. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 514 F,2d 1283 (5th Cir 1975) it was noted the time limit of 7 days for filing a written notice was to be strictly adhered to if the claimant was to stand a chance of being compensated for damaged goods (Bin, 2004). It was further set out that the time starts running on the day the claimant acknowledge he has received the damaged goods. Application First it must be noted that the defendant in this cases operates at a disadvantage as the presumption of innocence is removed by article 18 of the Warsaw convention (Mamdouh, 2005). From the facts of the case it can be gathered that the defendant received the five greyhounds in good condition from their previous transporter, Irish Airlines. After the Defendant flew them to Miami they were presumed dead on arrival. Further examination of the carcasses in an autopsy revealed they had died of suffocation. Under Article 18 of the Warsaw convention, these two facts place the liability for the death of the Greyhound on Delta airlines since the dogs died in the course of their flight (Chan, 2000). The cause of death of the two dogs also absolve the previous transporter from liability as suffocation kills quickly and could have only occurred on the latter flight. In view of these facts the defendant did not contest his liability for the death of the dog but rather brought up the issue of untimely written notice for a damage claim for the dead dogs. The legal matters concerning the timeliness of written notice for damage claim are governed by local laws in the case of a domestic flight and the Warsaw convention when it comes to international flights (Milde and Mah, 1996). The flight from Boston to Miami operated by Delta airlines is categorized as international as Mr. Dalton the client is an Irish citizen and Delta airlines is a US carrier. The earlier cases of Grey v. American Airlines, Inc., S.D.N.Y., 1950, 95 F.Supp. 756 and Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Pan American Airways, Inc., S.D.N.Y., 1944, 58 F.Supp. 338 had made it clear that such cases would come under the Warsaw Convention, 49 U.S.C & 1502 (Tompkins, 2010). In the first case at the District Court the judge interpreted Article 26 (2) on the issuance of the claim notice to mean the written notice was indeed untimely and dismissed the case. Having received the carcasses of the Dogs on 10th August 1973, Mr. Dalton should have given written notice to Delta Airlines of the damage claim by 17th August, 1973. However, Dalton gave this written notice 13 days later on 30th August 1973. This interpretation of the article is has the effect of limiting the liability of the carriers and represents a more objective interpretation of the intent of the Warsaw Convention. However, when the case was brought on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit the application of the Warsaw Convention was remarkably different. The judges in their ruling picked on the wording of Article 18 (2) of the Warsaw Charter to draw a distinction between the damage and destruction of goods. By the mere fact that the article failed to mention destruction of goods, the judges presumed there was a serious gap in article 26. This had the effect of delimiting the liability of the carrier which a doubtful intention of Article 26 which seeks to protect carriers from liability of belated claims. The interpretation is also inconsistent with the rest of the Convention which makes use of the words damage, loss and destruction as if they meant the same thing. Conclusion In contrast to the earlier decision in support of summary judgment the three judges in a unanimous decision reversed the summary judgment decision. The unanimity of the decision is also worrying as there was no dissenting view point of an incorrect interpretation of the Warsaw convention. Such a conclusion requiring no notice of goods destroyed would have the effect of opening a lawsuit floodgate for people whose claims would have been ruled late under the District court interpretation. Therefore judges not pick on minor wording mistakes in statutes and identify them as problems in the Statute in question. In contrast they must take into consideration the overall intention of the statute in question to interpret clauses with contentious wording or gaps. Otherwise some decisions like the one in Dalton v Delta Airways may be interpreted as occurrences of judicial activism. References Bin, C. (2004). A New Era in the Law of International Carriage by Air: From Warsaw (1929) to Montreal (1999). International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 53(4), 833-859. Chan, L. (2000). Claims Arising from Air Carriage. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 12(2), 331. Huang, J. (2007). Jurisdiction of the damages liability of international air transportation. (English). US-China Law Review, 4(4), 30-33. Mamdouh, A.A. (2005). Air carrier liability: unfinished unification of private international air law. Montreal: McGill University Milde, M & Mah, G. (1996). The Warsaw Convention: points of controversy. Montreal: McGill University. The Warsaw Convention, 49 U.S.C & 1502 Tompkins, G.N (2010). Liability Rules to International Air transportation as Developed by the Courts in the US: Warsaw 1929 - Montreal 1999. AH Alphen aan den Rjn: Kluwer Law International Read More