DeMarines v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15234, 433 F. Supp. 1047 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Warsaw Convention, an 'accident' can be established by a preponderance of lay witness testimony demonstrating that an unusual or unexpected event occurred during a flight, even without expert testimony explaining the technical cause of the event.
Facts:
- On May 20, 1972, John DeMarines and his wife, Doris DeMarines, were passengers on a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines charter flight between Zurich, Switzerland and Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- During the flight, John DeMarines suddenly felt an 'extreme, explosion-like pressure' within his head, rendering him temporarily unable to speak or hear.
- At the same time, DeMarines observed two other passengers holding their ears in apparent pain.
- Seven other passengers on the same flight segment later testified that they experienced unusually severe problems with ear pain, with several complaining to the flight crew.
- One passenger, Betty McWilliams, overheard a flight steward tell another passenger receiving oxygen that 'it was a wonder that other people hadn’t complained because they were having a problem with the air pressure.'
- Following the flight, DeMarines began experiencing a persistent loss of equilibrium, which he described as a 'floating feeling'.
- KLM flight crew members and eight other passengers testified that nothing abnormal occurred on the flight and the pressurization system functioned normally.
Procedural Posture:
- John and Doris DeMarines sued KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- A first trial held in April 1976 resulted in a hung jury.
- The case was retried before a jury in October 1976.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of John DeMarines for $1,000,000 and in favor of Doris DeMarines for $50,000.
- Following the jury verdict, KLM filed motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a passenger's testimony of an unusual physical sensation, corroborated by the testimony of other passengers experiencing similar distress, legally sufficient to prove the occurrence of an 'accident' under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention without expert testimony on the aircraft's mechanical systems?
Opinions:
Majority - Broderick, District Judge
Yes, a passenger's testimony corroborated by other passengers is sufficient to prove an 'accident' occurred. For liability under the Warsaw Convention, a plaintiff must prove an 'accident' happened, which is defined as an unusual or unexpected event that is not in the ordinary course of air travel. The plaintiff's testimony about the 'explosion-like pressure,' combined with the testimony of seven other passengers who experienced severe and unusual ear pain and a flight attendant's alleged statement about a pressure problem, constitutes sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that an unusual event occurred. Expert testimony is not required where lay persons can form a correct judgment, and in this case, the jury was capable of determining whether something abnormal or unexpected happened based on the collective passenger experience without needing a technical explanation of the aircraft's pressurization system.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard for proving an 'accident' under the Warsaw Convention. It establishes that an 'accident' can be proven circumstantially through the testimony of passengers, reducing the burden on plaintiffs who might otherwise need to hire expensive expert witnesses to prove a specific mechanical malfunction. The case is significant for defining an 'accident' from the passengers' perspective, focusing on the unusual nature of the event experienced rather than requiring direct proof of its technical cause. This precedent makes it easier for passengers to bring claims for injuries caused by events like abnormal pressurization changes, as the collective subjective experience of passengers can be sufficient to establish liability.
