Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904, 44 F.3d 334 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Airline Deregulation Act's preemption clause, which bars state laws "relating to rates, routes or services" of an air carrier, does not preempt state-law personal injury claims arising from an airline's alleged negligence in the operation or maintenance of an aircraft.
Facts:
- Frances Hodges was a passenger on a Delta Airlines flight from the Caribbean to Miami.
- During the flight, another passenger opened an overhead storage compartment.
- A case containing several bottles of rum was dislodged from the compartment and fell.
- The falling case struck Hodges, cutting her arm and wrist.
- Hodges sustained physical injuries and incurred medical expenses as a result of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances Hodges filed a negligence lawsuit under state tort law against Delta Airlines in federal district court.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Delta Airlines, dismissing the case.
- Hodges, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where Delta Airlines was the appellee.
- The case was heard en banc by the full court to resolve the preemption 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 the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempt a state law tort claim for personal physical injury based on alleged negligence in the operation of an aircraft?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
No. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 does not preempt a state law tort claim for personal physical injury based on alleged negligence in the operation of an aircraft. The court defines the term "services" in the preemption clause to refer to the economic and contractual features of air transportation, such as ticketing, boarding procedures, baggage handling policies, and provision of food and drink. It does not extend to the actual safety and physical operation or maintenance of the aircraft. This interpretation is supported by another provision in federal airline law, 49 U.S.C. App. § 1371(q), which requires airlines to maintain insurance for bodily injuries resulting from the 'operation or maintenance of aircraft,' indicating Congress anticipated such state-law tort claims would continue. Congress did not intend to eliminate all judicial remedies for passengers physically injured by airline negligence without providing a federal alternative.
Concurring - Jolly, J.
No. While the result is correct, the majority's distinction between 'services' and 'operations' is confusing and will lead to uncertain application. A better rationale is based on the plain language of the statute, which preempts a 'state' from 'enact[ing] or enforc[ing] any law.' A private individual's common law tort suit is not an action by the state to enact or enforce a law; it is a private effort to obtain relief under traditional, pre-existing legal principles. Therefore, the preemption provision does not apply to private common law tort actions for personal injury.
Dissenting - Higginbotham, J.
Yes. Hodges's claim should be preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. The stowing of carry-on baggage is plainly a 'service' provided by the airline. A state tort suit based on this activity would have a regulatory effect on that service, which is what the Act forbids. The activity does not fall within the 'operation or maintenance of aircraft' exception, which is statutorily defined as 'the use of aircraft, for the purpose of air navigation.' Because the claim relates to a service and not to the navigation or maintenance of the aircraft, it is expressly preempted.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of the Airline Deregulation Act's express preemption clause, ensuring that passengers retain state-law remedies for personal injuries caused by airline negligence. The court's distinction between economic 'services' (which are preempted) and safety-related 'operations' (which are not) became a critical framework for analyzing ADA preemption cases. The decision preserves a traditional area of state police power and prevents the ADA from being used as a broad shield against liability for conduct that causes physical harm, thereby ensuring a means of recourse for injured travelers.
