Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00828/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00828-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 08cv0828

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIOLETTE MANSOOR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv0828 JM(RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. DISMISS 

AIR FRANCE KLM AIRLINES,

Defendant.

Defendant Air France KLM Airlines (“Air France”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff Violette

Mansoor’s (“Mansoor”) complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate

for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is denied.

BACKGROUND

On May 7, 2008 Plaintiff commenced this federal question action seeking compensatory

damages for injuries she sustained during an international flight operated by Air France. “During Air

France Flight 307 from Atlanta to Paris on May 10, the plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries

when she tripped and fell as a result of a hazard in the walkway onboard the aircraft.” (Compl. ¶19).

Plaintiff alleges a single claim for personal injuries pursuant to Articles 17 and 21 of the

Montreal Convention 1999. Pursuant to the Convention, Plaintiff alleges that her injuries were caused

Case 3:08-cv-00828-JM-RBB Document 11 Filed 10/27/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 08cv0828

by Air France’s negligence within the meaning of Article 21 and therefore Defendant “is liable for

damages exceeding 100,000 Special Drawing Rights as provided in Article 21.” (Compl. ¶23).

Plaintiff alleges that she suffered severe and permanent injuries as a result of the fall and is “unable

to engage in her usual occupation and activities, and suffered physical pain and mental suffering.”

(Compl. ¶26).

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only in "extraordinary" cases.

United States v. Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981). Courts should grant 12(b)(6) relief

only where a plaintiff's complaint lacks a "cognizable legal theory" or sufficient facts to support a

cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts

should dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim when the factual allegations are insufficient “to

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, __550 U.S. __, 127

S.Ct. 1955, 1959 (2007). The defect must appear on the face of the complaint itself. Thus, courts may

not consider extraneous material in testing its legal adequacy. Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc., 950 F.2d

1478, 1482 (9th Cir. 1991). The courts may, however, consider material properly submitted as part

of the complaint. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th

Cir. 1989). 

Finally, courts must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Concha

v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. dismissed, 517 U.S. 1183 (1996). Accordingly,

courts must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as reasonable inferences

to be drawn from them. Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 1992). However,

conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion. In Re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

 Air France contends that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under Article 17 of the

Montreal Convention because the injury was not the result of “anything unusual or abnormal with

respect to the operation or condition of the aircraft.” (Motion at p.4:24-25). Article 17 of the

Case 3:08-cv-00828-JM-RBB Document 11 Filed 10/27/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 08cv0828

Montreal Convention, the successor treaty to the Warsaw convention, “establishes the liability of

international air carriers for harm to passengers.” Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 397 (1985).

Article 17 provides:

The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding

of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the accident which

caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any

of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

The Supreme Court noted that the term “accident” is not a technical legal term with a clearly defined

meaning. Id. at 398. Focusing on Article 17's language that air carriers would be liable if an accident

caused the injury, the court noted that “it is the cause of the injury that must satisfy the definition

rather than the occurrence of the injury alone. American jurisprudence has long recognized this

distinction between an accident that is the cause of an injury and an injury that is itself an accident.”

Id. at 399 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court held “that liability under Article 17 of the

[Montreal] Convention arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event

or happening that is external to the passenger.” Id. at 405. The Supreme Court also noted that “[t]his

definition should be flexibly applied after assessment of all the circumstances surrounding a

passenger’s injuries.” Id.

Air France contends that the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to establish that Plaintiff’s

injuries were the result of anything unusual or abnormal with respect to the operation or condition of

the aircraft. (Motion at p.4:24-25). Air France argues that if Plaintiff tripped on someone’s foot or

protruding under-seat carry-on luggage there can be no liability under Article 17 as such an occurrence

is not unexpected or unusual. For legal authority, Air France primarily relies on authorities that

addressed the issue of liability in the context of summary judgment. In Rafailow v. El Al Israel

Airlines, Ltd., 2008 WL 2047610 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) the plaintiff attempted to exit her middle seat when

she encountered a reclining seat directly in front of her. As she made her way to the aisle, plaintiff

slipped on an empty blanket plastic bag beneath an adjacent seat. She fell and sustained injury. The

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the airline noting that “[a]fter four hours in flight,

it [] would seem customary to encounter a certain amount of refuse on an airplane floor, including

blanket bags discarded by passengers who had removed the bag’s contents in order to use the blanket.”

Id. at *3. The district court also noted that the event that caused plaintiff’s injury was not unexpected

Case 3:08-cv-00828-JM-RBB Document 11 Filed 10/27/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 08cv0828

nor an unusual event external to the passenger. See also Sethy v. Maley_Hungarian Airlines, 2000

WL 1234660 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (granting summary judgment in favor of airline under Article 17 where

plaintiff tripped over luggage left in aisle during boarding because “there is nothing unexpected or

unusual about the presence of a bag in or hear the aisle during the boarding process”); Craig v.

Compagnie Nationale Air France, 1994 WL 711916 (C.Cal. 1994) (granting summary judgment in

favor of airline where plaintiff injured herself after tripping on a pair of shoes left on the airplane

floor); Potter v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 98 F.3d 881 (5th Cir. 1996) (granting summary judgment in favor

of airline where plaintiff twisted her ankle while attempting to maneuver around fully reclined seat

in front of her because the incident was not caused by an unusual event); but see Gezzi v. British

Airways PLC, 991 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1993) (following bench trial affirming damages award to plaintiff

who slipped on a wet step while embarking on the aircraft).

Here, unlike the authorities cited by Air France, the present motion arises in the context of a

motion under Rule 12(b)(6), and not Rule 56. Under Rule 12(b)(6) the court construes the complaint

and all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff even if the allegations may be doubtful in fact.

Twomby, 127 S.Ct. at 1959-61. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was injured “when she tripped

and fell as a result of a hazard in the walkway onboard the aircraft.” (Compl. ¶19). Applying the

appropriate legal standard, the court concludes that the hazard encountered by Plaintiff, whatever the

precise nature of that hazard may be, is adequately alleged to be the cause of Plaintiff’s injury.

Furthermore, that hazard, as alleged, appears external to Plaintiff. In light of federal notice pleading

requirements, Air France can file an adequate answer and conduct discovery relevant to Plaintiff’s

claim. Finally, the court notes that an accident under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention is a

flexible term that encompasses an “assessment of all the circumstances surrounding a passenger’s

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00828-JM-RBB Document 11 Filed 10/27/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 08cv0828

 injuries.” Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. at 397. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion the court is simply not able

to assess the circumstances of Plaintiff’s injuries. 

In sum, the motion to dismiss is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-00828-JM-RBB Document 11 Filed 10/27/08 Page 5 of 5