Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
160 F.3d 1259, 98 Daily Journal DAR 12120, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8712 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) preempts state laws relating to the economic aspects of air transportation, such as pricing, scheduling, and markets served, but does not preempt state-law personal injury claims arising from an airline's alleged negligence in providing amenities or assistance to passengers.
Facts:
- Robert A. Beverage was a passenger on a Continental Airlines flight when a flight attendant hit his shoulder with a service cart, causing serious injuries.
- On a Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight, after the plane landed, another passenger opened an overhead bin and a large piece of luggage fell on Mildred Jacoby’s head.
- Cherie Charas, a passenger on a TWA flight, tripped over a piece of luggage allegedly left in the aisle by a flight attendant, resulting in a fractured humerus.
- Bernice Gulley, who has a bone condition, informed American Airlines she needed assistance disembarking, but no help was provided. She fell and sustained injuries while exiting the plane on a stairway with a single chain handhold.
- Elizabeth Newman, who is blind and has a heart condition, was denied boarding on an American Airlines flight after she could not provide her doctor's phone number to verify her fitness to fly. She subsequently fell and was injured while boarding a shuttle bus to a motel.
Procedural Posture:
- Multiple plaintiffs (Beverage, Jacoby, Charas, Gulley, and Newman) filed separate state-law tort claims against various airlines in federal district courts.
- In each case, the respective district court granted the airline's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA).
- Each plaintiff filed a timely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit consolidated the appeals and, on its own motion, took the cases en banc before a three-judge panel could render a decision in order to reconsider its precedent on ADA preemption.
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 the Airline Deregulation Act's preemption of state laws "relating to rates, routes, or service" bar state-law personal injury claims based on an airline's alleged negligence in providing amenities and assistance to passengers?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Silverman
No. The Airline Deregulation Act's preemption clause does not bar state-law personal injury claims for negligence. The court holds that Congress, in using the word "service" in the phrase "rates, routes, or service," was referring to the economic and logistical aspects of air transportation, such as prices, schedules, and destinations. The term was not intended to include an airline's provision of in-flight amenities, personal assistance to passengers, or the handling of luggage. The court reasons that the primary purpose of the ADA was economic deregulation to foster competition, not to immunize airlines from common-law tort liability for personal injuries. This interpretation is supported by Supreme Court precedent in Morales and Wolens, which suggested that state actions affecting airlines in a "tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner" are not preempted. Furthermore, other statutory provisions, such as the requirement for airlines to carry liability insurance for bodily injuries and the Act's savings clause preserving common-law remedies, indicate Congress did not intend to displace state tort law. The court expressly overrules its prior decisions in Harris and Gee, which had adopted an unworkable distinction between preempted "services" and non-preempted "operations and maintenance."
Analysis:
This en banc decision significantly narrows the scope of ADA preemption within the Ninth Circuit, overturning precedent that had broadly shielded airlines from state-law personal injury claims. By defining "service" in its public utility context (scheduling and markets) rather than as customer service, the court re-opened the courthouse doors to passengers injured by airline negligence unrelated to economic deregulation. This ruling aligns the Ninth Circuit with a more passenger-protective interpretation of the ADA, establishing a clear analytical framework focused on whether a state-law claim interferes with the competitive market forces that Congress sought to promote. The decision makes it more difficult for airlines to use the ADA as a shield against liability for ordinary negligence.
