Air France v. Saks
1985 U.S. LEXIS 62, 84 L. Ed. 2d 289, 470 U.S. 392 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, an 'accident' is an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger. An injury resulting from a passenger's internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of an aircraft is not caused by an 'accident' and thus the air carrier is not liable.
Facts:
- On November 16, 1980, Valerie Saks was a passenger on a 12-hour Air France flight from Paris to Los Angeles.
- During the aircraft's normal descent into Los Angeles, Saks felt severe pressure and pain in her left ear.
- The pain continued after landing, but Saks disembarked without informing any Air France crew members of her condition.
- Five days later, a doctor diagnosed Saks with permanent deafness in her left ear.
- All available evidence, including postflight reports and testimony, indicated that the aircraft's pressurization system had operated in a normal and usual manner throughout the flight.
Procedural Posture:
- Valerie Saks filed a lawsuit against Air France in a California state court.
- The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Air France, ruling that the normal operation of the aircraft's pressurization system was not an 'accident.'
- Saks, as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that a normal cabin pressure change could be considered an 'accident' under the treaty.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury that results from a passenger's internal reaction to the normal operations of an aircraft constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, thereby making the airline liable for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No, an injury resulting from a passenger's internal reaction to the normal operations of an aircraft does not constitute an 'accident' under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. The Court held that liability under Article 17 arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger. The Court reasoned that the treaty's text deliberately uses the word 'accident' for passenger injuries in Article 17, while using the broader term 'occurrence' for baggage claims in Article 18, implying 'accident' has a more specific meaning. Furthermore, Article 17 requires that an 'accident... caused the damage,' meaning the cause of the injury must be accidental, not that the injury itself is the accident. Reviewing the treaty's French origins, negotiating history, and interpretations by other signatory nations, the Court concluded that an 'accident' must be something other than the normal operation of the plane. Since Saks's deafness indisputably resulted from her own internal reaction to routine cabin pressure changes, it was not caused by an accident.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of air carrier liability under the Warsaw Convention by establishing a restrictive definition of 'accident.' It creates a clear precedent that injuries arising from routine flight operations, without an external, unusual event, are not compensable under the treaty. This ruling forces plaintiffs to prove that a specific, unexpected event caused their harm, rather than simply showing their injury was a 'risk of air travel.' Consequently, it protects airlines from liability for injuries caused solely by a passenger's unique physiological reaction to normal flight conditions.
