Olympic Airways v. Husain
157 L. Ed. 2d 1146, 540 U.S. 644, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1620 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier's unusual and unexpected failure to act or refusal to assist a passenger can constitute an "accident" if it is a link in the chain of causation leading to the passenger's injury or death.
Facts:
- Dr. Abid Hanson, who had asthma and a severe sensitivity to secondhand smoke, was a passenger with his wife, Rubina Husain, on an international flight operated by Olympic Airways.
- Before the flight from Cairo to San Francisco, Husain informed the check-in agent of Dr. Hanson's condition and requested seats in the non-smoking section.
- Upon boarding, they discovered their assigned seats were only three rows in front of the economy-class smoking section.
- Husain repeatedly requested that a flight attendant, Maria Leptourgou, move Dr. Hanson, explaining his allergy to smoke.
- The flight attendant refused to assist on three separate occasions, stating the plane was 'totally full' and she was 'too busy,' even though there were unoccupied seats.
- After takeoff, passengers began smoking, surrounding Dr. Hanson with ambient smoke.
- The flight attendant again refused to help, telling Husain she could ask other passengers to switch seats herself, but the crew would not assist.
- Approximately two hours into the flight, Dr. Hanson suffered a severe reaction to the smoke and died, despite receiving emergency medical aid.
Procedural Posture:
- Rubina Husain filed a wrongful-death suit against Olympic Airways in California state court.
- Olympic Airways removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found Olympic Airways liable, holding that the flight attendant's refusal to reseat Dr. Hanson was an 'accident' under Article 17.
- Olympic Airways, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
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 air carrier's unusual and unexpected refusal to reseat a passenger with a known medical condition constitute an 'accident' under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, thus making the carrier liable for the passenger's resulting death?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, the air carrier's unusual and unexpected refusal to reseat the passenger constitutes an 'accident' under Article 17. An 'accident' is defined as an 'unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.' The court reasoned that an injury is often the product of a chain of causes, and a plaintiff need only prove that one link in that chain was an unusual or unexpected external event. Here, the flight attendant's repeated refusal to assist Dr. Hanson, which was contrary to industry standards and airline policy, was a qualifying 'event' or 'happening' in the chain of events that led to his death. The court rejected the argument that an 'accident' must be an affirmative action, holding that inaction or omission, such as the rejection of an explicit request for assistance, qualifies as an event.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, the air carrier's refusal to act does not constitute an 'accident.' The dissent argues that inaction is a 'non-event' and the 'antithesis of an accident,' which must be an actual event or happening. Justice Scalia heavily criticized the majority for failing to give 'considerable weight' to recent, contrary decisions from the appellate courts of England and Australia, sister signatories to the Warsaw Convention, which held that a failure to act cannot be an accident. This departure from foreign interpretation undermines the treaty's goal of uniform application. The dissent contends that the injury was caused by exposure to ambient smoke—a normal condition of the flight—not by the crew's inaction, and that the Convention was not intended to provide a remedy for every instance of poor service or negligence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of what constitutes an 'accident' under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. By including an airline's inaction or failure to assist as a potential 'accident,' the Court shifted the focus from purely physical events (like turbulence or a hijacking) to the conduct and service of the flight crew. The ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to bring claims based on an airline's failure to respond to a passenger's known medical needs. This precedent expands carrier liability beyond the physical operation of the aircraft and establishes that a breach of service standards, if unusual and unexpected, can be a compensable event.
