El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng
525 U.S. 155, 142 L. Ed. 2d 576, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 505 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Warsaw Convention provides the exclusive remedy for personal injury claims arising during international air travel, precluding passengers from bringing actions under local law even when their claims do not satisfy the conditions for liability under the Convention.
Facts:
- On May 22, 1993, Tsui Yuan Tseng arrived at JFK International Airport to board an El Al Israel Airlines flight to Tel Aviv.
- During preboarding procedures, an El Al security guard deemed Tseng a "high risk" passenger based on her answers to questions.
- Tseng was taken to a private room for an intrusive security search, where she was told to remove her jacket and sweater, and lower her jeans.
- A female guard searched Tseng's body by hand and with an electronic wand during the 15-minute search.
- After being cleared for the flight, Tseng alleged she was emotionally traumatized by the incident and suffered psychic and psychosomatic injuries, but no physical bodily injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Tsui Yuan Tseng sued El Al Israel Airlines in a New York state court of first instance, alleging state-law tort claims.
- El Al removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- After a bench trial, the District Court dismissed Tseng's personal injury claim, holding that it was governed exclusively by the Warsaw Convention and was not compensable under its terms.
- Tseng appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the Warsaw Convention was not Tseng's exclusive remedy and that she could pursue her claim under New York state law.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the federal circuit courts.
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 Warsaw Convention preclude a passenger from bringing a personal injury action under local law when the claim does not satisfy the conditions for liability under the Convention?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, the Warsaw Convention provides the exclusive remedy for personal injury claims occurring during international air travel. Recovery for a personal injury suffered 'on board an aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking,' if not allowed under the Convention, is not available at all. The Court reasoned that the cardinal purpose of the Convention is to achieve uniformity in the rules governing claims from international air transportation. Reading Article 24 to permit local law claims when the Convention's conditions are not met would undermine this goal and create anomalies, such as passengers with only psychic injuries having access to potentially unlimited damages while those with physical injuries are capped by the Convention. The phrase 'cases covered by article 17' refers to the type and location of the injury (personal injury during embarking), not only to cases where a passenger can successfully recover. This interpretation is supported by the Convention's drafting history, the decisions of courts in other signatory nations, and is clarified by the recently ratified Montreal Protocol No. 4.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, the Warsaw Convention should not preclude local law claims for a narrow category of cases that fall outside its specific provisions. The Convention does not preempt local law in cases of 'wilful misconduct,' demonstrating that its interest in uniformity is not absolute. This case falls into a narrow sliver of incidents involving personal injury that arise from neither an 'accident' nor 'wilful misconduct.' A treaty, like a statute, should not be construed to preempt state law unless its intent to do so is clear. Given that the text and drafting history are ambiguous on this point, the presumption against preemption should control, allowing Tseng's local law claim to proceed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Warsaw Convention as a comprehensive and exclusive liability regime, effectively closing the door on state law tort claims for injuries occurring during international air travel that fall within the Convention's scope. By establishing the Convention's broad preemptive power, the Court prioritizes international uniformity and predictability for air carriers over the ability of individual passengers to seek remedies under local law. This ruling prevents plaintiffs from 'pleading around' the Convention's limitations (e.g., the 'accident' or 'bodily injury' requirements) and reinforces the treaty's role as the sole source of law for such claims.
