Document: 490 U.S. 122 109 S.Ct. 1676 104 L.Ed.2d 113 Elisa CHAN, et al., Petitionersv.KOREAN AIR LINES, LTD. No. 87-1055. Argued Dec. 7, 1988. Decided April 18, 1989. Syllabus This case involves wrongful death actions against Korean Air Lines, Ltd. (KAL), by survivors of persons killed when one its planes was destroyed a Soviet aircraft. All parties agree that their rights are governed the multilateral treaty known as Warsaw Convention, which provides per passenger damages limitation for personal injury or death. A private accord among airlines Montreal Agreement requires carriers to give notice this passengers in print size no smaller than 10-point type. Since KAL's on flight question appeared only 8-point type, plaintiffs moved partial summary judgment declaring discrepancy deprived KAL benefit limitation. The District Court denied motion, finding neither Convention nor prescribes elimination sanction failure provide required form notice. Appeals affirmed interlocutory appeal. Held: International air do not lose Convention's if they fail tickets. concededly does impose such sanction, and plain language also direct result. Interpreting second sentence Article 3(2) subjects carrier unlimited liability nondelivery ticket—to apply an "adequate" statement conflicts with first 3(2), specifies "[t]he . irregularity ticket shall affect existence validity [transportation] contract." Such interpretation text would entail unlikely result even minor defect ticket, totally unrelated adequate notice, eliminate That defective compliance provision void is confirmed comparing other provisions, specifically include baggage checks waybills cargo. Although drafting history might be consulted elucidate ambiguous, has power insert amendment into where clear. Pp. 125-135. 265 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 829 F.2d 1171, affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, filed concurring judgment, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined, post, p. 136. Gilton G. Sincoff, petitioners. Richard J. Lazarus, Urbana, Ill., amicus curiae supporting petitioners, special leave Court. George N. Tompkins, Jr., New York City, respondent. Justice SCALIA 1 presents whether international provided type carriers, Agreement. 2 * On September 1, 1983, over Sea Japan, military aircraft Union Boeing 747 en route from Kennedy Airport Seoul, South Korea. 269 board plane perished. Survivors victims wrongful-death several Federal Courts, all were transferred pretrial proceedings Columbia pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1407. governing carriage passengers, baggage, cargo air. Unification Certain Rules Relating Transportation Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, T.S. 876 (1934), reprinted note following U.S.C.App. 1502. 3 present controversy centers fixed at approximately $8,300 but raised $75,000 Agreement, agreement executed (and approved Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)) 1966, joined 1969. Liability Limitations Hague Protocol, CAB 18900, 1502 (approved Order E-23680, May 13, 31 Fed.Reg. 7302). In addition providing higher limitation, written damage limitations rules printed tickets here By motion sought declaration 4 July 25, 1985, re Lines Disaster 664 F.Supp. 1463. Its considered rejected contrary Second Circuit precedent. See Crash Warsaw, Poland, March 14, 1980, 705 85, cert. sub nom. Polskie Linie Lotnicze v. Robles, 464 845, 147, 78 138 (1983). 24, certified appeal under 1292(b) (1982 ed., Supp. IV) "is entitled avail itself despite tickets." allowed (following remand record clarification scope Court's order) affirmed, adopting full. 1171 (1987). We granted certiorari, 485 986, 108 1288, 99 499 (1988), resolve conflict Courts Appeals. (In Circuit, Fifth disagreement Circuit's resolution here. Near Orleans, Louisiana, 9, 1982, 789 1092 (1986), reinstated, 821 1147 (1987) (en banc).) II 5 Petitioners concede imposes comply requirement.1 They argue, however, requirement created reading conjunction Convention. argument proceeds two steps. First, petitioners assert removes protection limited fails Second, contend Agreement's supplies standard 3. Because we reject point, need reach second.2 6 provides: 7 "(1) For transportation must deliver contain particulars: 8 "(a) place date issue; 9 "(b) departure estination; "(c) agreed stopping places, may reserve right alter places necessity, he exercises right, alteration have effect depriving character; 10 "(d) name address carriers; 11 "(e) subject relating established convention. 12 "(2) absence, irregularity, loss contract transportation, none less Nevertheless, accepts without having been himself those provisions convention exclude limit his liability." 13 3(1)(e) "[a] convention," nothing elsewhere statement. appears clause it "accepts delivered." Several courts equated purposes provision, delivery supra; 85 (CA2), (1983); Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft CAB, 156 191, 196-197, 479 912, 917-918 (1973); Lisi Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A., 370 508 (CA2 1966), aff'd equally divided 390 455, 88 1193, 20 27 (1968); Egan Kollsman Instrument Corp., 21 N.Y.2d 160, 287 N.Y.S.2d 234 N.E.2d 199 (1967), denied, 1039, 1636, 301 (1968). Warren Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 352 494 (CA9 1965) (conditioning upon manner afford reasonable opportunity take measures protect limitation); Mertens 341 851 (CA2) (same), 382 816, 86 38, 15 64 (1965). But see Ludecke Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 98 D.L.R.3d 52, 57 (Can.1979) (rejecting view American cases). 14 cannot accept interpretation. order avoid "deliver[y]" "a ticket." Expanding mean requirements Convention" rendered implausible convention." It clear (1) "irregularity" prevent document being "passenger ticket"; (2) contractual "Irregularity" means "[q]uality state conforming rule law," Webster's Dictionary (1950), context word surely refer including requirement. Thus, qualify "p ssenger ticket," cause forfeiture merely because contains When after making much clear, continues (in sentence) "Nevertheless, delivered, etc.," can referring carrier's any whatever, whose shortcomings so extensive reasonably described "ticket" (for example, mistakenly blank form, data filled in). Quite obviously, use instead shortcoming magnitude; indeed, well select polar example what could possibly ticket.3 Besides incompatible proposition that, delivering equivalent produces absurd results. seem enough "shall liability" consists precisely proper provisions. there textual basis limiting "defective-ticket-is-no-ticket" principle particular defect. eliminated failed comply, 3(1)(d) carrier. 16 conclusion part Chapter "Transportation Documents." Just Section I (which includes 3) information included tickets, Sections III specify in, respectively, three sections require, identical terms, Articles 3(1)(e), 4(3)(h), 8(q). provide, again relevant (ticket, check, waybill) (or, waybill, "made out"), 4(4), 9. But, unlike I, latter documents certain particulars, (though to) limitation.4 thus make doubly already indicates: something quite different document. And given parallel structures these flouting imply withheld explicitly elsewhere. allowed, art draftsmanship will become obsolete. 17 United States seek explain variance between (as error, lead us through labyrinth effort establish point. absurd, urge, limits freight Perhaps not. thought, representatives diverse countries who drafted 1925 1929 (an era many country had relatively low recovery) maximum "fair" recovery event, caused forgo purchase additional insurance, heirs treated rough equity event. Cf. C. McCormick, Law Damages (1935) ("In about one-third states, Death Act imposed statute. usual $10,000, some instanc $7,500 $5,000"). (about $16.50 kilogram, 22(2)) set eye fair value (the very notion average goods kilogram absurd), perhaps level relation profit carriage—so shipper lost misled inadequate compensated equitably. Another possible explanation difference treatment prescribed more substantial them important. just virtually nominal monetary limit, total exclusion "an error piloting, handling aircraft, navigation." 20. Or traced belief people likely, given, insurance own lives—not lot frequently establishes, effect, insurance-purchasing counter airport freight, consignor makes paid supplementary sum requires," liable actual up declared sum. 22(2); 4(g), 8(m). 18 These estimations drafters mind course speculation, suffice necessarily hence dismissed obvious error. text—solemnly adopted governments separate nations—whatever conclusions drawn intricate brought our attention. see, e.g., France Saks, 470 392, 105 1338, 84 289 (1985). here, amendment.5 As Story wrote century half ago: "[T]o alter, amend, add treaty, inserting clause, small great, important trivial, usurpation power, exercise judicial functions. make, construe treaty. Neither supply casus omissus law. find out intention applied matter; found duty follow far goes, stop stops—whatever imperfections difficulties leaves behind." Amiable Isabella, Wheat. 71, L.Ed. 191 (1821). 19 reasons above, Supreme Canada, 52 (1979), Accordingly, affirm Circuit. So ordered. whom STEVENS join, judgment. If paraphrase Harlan: advanced should rejected, consider respectful burial accorded.1 Over last 25 years, petitioners' accepted, until litigation, every court it. One consistently Executive Branch, pressed curiae. deserves least stated full, self-affixed blindfold prevents examining anything beyond itself. 22 holds 22(1), applies delivered. plausible reading, most disingenuous say reading. Certainly wrong disregard wealth evidence intent altogether extrinsic treatymakers' intent. 396, 400, 1340, 1342, (1985); Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale 482 522, 534, 107 2542, 2550, 96 461 (1987); Volkswagenwerk Schlunk, 486 694, 700-702, 2104, 2108-2109, 100 722 (1988). generally are, course, instructed ultimately ratify negotiations helpful clues governments' collective intent, took shape during negotiating process.2 23 There strong meant thinks says. place, susceptible Court's. 3(1) describes follows deliver: "[A] particulars. ." think unreasonable read term used subsequently shorthand longer phrase. moreover, clearly meaning ascribes Ante, 128. "absence, loss" contract, "which Those laid down next sentence, i.e., exists absent "irregular," still denies conditions.3 whole, hold obligations, deny benefits, requirements.4 24 not, least, results liability.5 hand, casts doubt Evidence therefore understanding contracting intended. conferences aviation law, held, Paris 1929. work done committee experts, CITEJA, particularly committee's Commission, series meetings 1927 1928. M. Smirnoff, Le Comite Technique d'Experts Juridiques Aeriens (1936). CITEJA presented Conference Private Aviation amended number respects before adoption submission ratification. Without tracing evolution draft detail, themes discerned CITEJA's drafts minutes. 26 abundantly throughout entire process delegates intended same regime sanctions concerning checks, waybills. initial object preparation waybill transport freight. phase, contained various "particulars" (Article 7), 8). clear: "If containing particulars 7(a) (g) made liability, release him responsibility errors agents, U.S.App. 43a-44a, 55a-56a. Subsequently, determined merge proposed modifications 1925. Id., 46a, 58a. At third session 1928, Commission which, 3, similar foreseen previous draft. four listed Convention." Article, session, provided: "If, out, above-mentioned partially derived negligence agents." 72a, 91a.6 Similar regard check. id., 76a-77a, 95a-96a. report submitted Henry de Vos, Reporter Committee, full crystal parallelism approach types documents: "[T]he transporting regular goods." 73a, 92a. Similarly, Monsieur Vos prepared behalf accompany final observation: Aeronautical Minutes 247 (R. Horner & D. Legrez transl.1975) (emphasis added) (hereinafter Legrez).7 observation relates purpose clause. simply chosen compel thought necessary. During stages requiring adhering states criminal civil penalties specifications, accepted British suggestion benefits compelling compliance. 35a-36a, 47a-49a, 42a, 54a-55a, 63a, 82a-83a. essential, others inclusion recommended. "obligatory" former group. obligatory were, speaking, character transportation. 41a, 54a. carrier." 43a, 55a. today deem unnecessary demonstrate apparently drafters, debated sort question, 62a-64a, 82a-83a, saw severe penalty practicable travel essential. (The necessary domicile jurisdictional 28.) considers "absurd resul[t]," ante, 130, (at reached floor) authors 29 Conference. absolutely did 258 ("If traveler indicated hereabove .") added). What somewhat stipulating "particulars." referred "the hereabove"; while mentioned letter alphabet like others, paragraph.8 4, ambiguous point: there, too, paragraph, lettered (a) (f), referenced issue (d).9 specified limit.10 30 Japanese delegation, recognizing just-mentioned ambiguity, resulted reordering "particular." change obligatory, 310, omission liability. regarded technical wording, 272, engendered floor discussion. Had adopted, limit. produced Throughout Greek delegation repeatedly objected too harsh. 39a, 51a; 1928 meeting weaken specifying prejudice particular, rejected. 63a-64a, 83a. emerge record, amendment, 303-304, met success. preparatory extent deleting words, "or above." 150.11 differently. deemed became (h) remained so; thus, phrase check (d), 156. rewritten fashion. 157-162. 32 reason structure other. Solicitor General views essentially resulting coordinate amendments. Brief Amicus Curiae 18-21. is, sure, create waybill. draws support Reporter's changes check: "The paragraph modified Ar icle 3; retained puzzling fundamental applying scheme acknowledgment. late opening substantive Reporter, foregoing sessions, documents.12 Only days later revision difficult imagine point intended, said explicitly. 33 An examination proposal led change, presenting it, strengthens impression possibility "by simple omitted mention issuance, departure, address; keep finally intermediate stop." 303. plenary characterized concern follows: it's omission, employee 150. focus clerical filling forms. remove list trigger sanction—as (but 8) retain statement, hardly kind ticket-counter 34 While preserved impossible certainty treatymakers contemplated removal finds considerable available evidence. time discussed constituted rather (e) was, conceivable removed words above," intending 35 offers hypotheses why treat differently 133-134. explanations square drafting. whereas point; conference. There, anything, 4. Supra, 142-143. reason, therefore, according weight emerged trace minutes, decision reverse relative seems unintended consequence conference.13 36 Even agree, provisions,14 end matter. Respondent undeniably Petitioners' goes this, determine "adequate," and, so, standard. 37 "adequate notice" held conditions permit act (by, purchasing insurance). 851, 856-858 (ticket boarded airplane), (1965); foot ramp airplane). Closer situation much-noted 4-point "camouflaged Lilliputian thicket 'Conditions Contract' " "virtually invisible." F.2d, 514. 'delivered self-protective measures. .' 513, quoting Mertens, supra, 857. More recently appellate courts, relying 8.5-point 9-point inadequate. 1092, 1098 (CA5), rehearing granted, 795 381 (1986) banc), 1147, banc). 38 indeed required, meet minimal "adequacy." doubt, literally magnifying glass all. Lisi, case. my correctly decided. where, "advice" occupied page book. [other conditions]." 39 Orleans 8.5- Rather, bright-line based similarly bright line taken define adequate. argume t. airline companies, purport amend To concluded pressure Government, otherwise withdrawn Lowenfeld Mendelsohn, 80 Harv.L.Rev. 497, 546-596 (1967). operating Administration (FAA) Regulations agreement. CFR pt. 203, 213.7 (1988); 221.175(a) (1988) (requiring type). federal regulations specifications rather, whatever FAA foreign abide applicable regulations, presumably suspension revocation airline's operate States. 1372(f).15 40 Nor event His regulation codified adopt measure notice." 24-27. Here, conventional term. license require standard, sake line.16 41 view, complex am position applicabilit Having come far, minimally legible, leap inadequate, matter obligation related concur respondent portion "2. Each shall, furnish each large ink contrasting stock (i) ticket; (ii) piece paper either placed envelope attached (iii) envelope: "ADVICE TO INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY "Passengers journey involving ultimate destination origin advised journey, entirely within destination. to, from, America, contracts embodied tariffs (name carrier) other[*] cases proven exceed US passenger, depend travelling party $8,290 $16,580. names Carriers offices examined request. "Additional usually obtained company. affected carriage. further please consult your company representative. [*]Either alternative used." Statutes Related Materials 515 (compiled Office Counsel, 1974). discuss Department (formerly CAB) Economic Regulation Part 221, originally promulgated 1963, imports except penalty, 1471. (per impossibile ) Branch unilaterally prescribe of, invalidating lacking. BRENNAN accuses "disingenuous" saying single accusation, arguments show "surely susceptible," 137, another "not 'passenger ticket,' 3(2)" mean, 3(1), "shorthand [the] phrase" consisting says contain. suggested unreasonable—not sensible draftsman strange "shorthand" referring, "such ticket" nonsensical. concurrence's exegesis assessed substituting ticket"—by concurrence) 3(1). then reads, part: transportation." way absurdity posit 3(1)—but "something other." BRENNAN's "quite clearly," 137 original), described. reads irregular convention" "rules" interprets it) "regular apply. Though put forward argument, obviously assumes correctness one, since "rule" "irregular" opposed apart flaw, setting forth begins "Nevertheless." sets exception operation specification conveyed, new beginning "Nevertheless," "including that." written, plainly conveys "absence" (covered never "nevertheless"—despite sentence—be unable excluding concurrence believes sees text—which render imposing evidently adopt, drafters. 146-147. Ultimately, then, terms ambiguity depart Treaty. "SECTION II. BAGGAGE CHECK "Article "(3) destination; bearer check; "(f) packages; "(g) amount accordance article "(h) "(4) III. WAYBILL execution; consignor; carrier; consignee, requires; nature goods; packages, method packing, marks numbers them; "(i) weight, quantity, volume, dimensions "(j) apparent condition packing; "(k) upon, payment, person pay it; "(l) sent payment delivery, price goods, requires, expenses incurred; "(m) "(n) parts waybill; "(o) handed "(p) completion brief followed, matters upon; "(q) 8(a) (i), inclusive, (q), natural properly contradicted history. interesting, concurrence, performing inappropriate, concludes "impossible intended." Post, 146. resort treaty's text. Instead, shifts mode analysis—one employed outset demonstrating technique pursuing dead end. pages, Convention—an assumption justifies fact "[c]ourts [such a] 149. Of requirement, determining doing assuming it—was selected review. granting writs certiorari points statutory lower resolved, assume correct decide reasoning useless analysis guidance told, "may well" yield result, 150 always assuming, (what venture decide) 6-point hint choose wasteful expenditure time. Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 349, 83 792, 799, 799 (1963) (Harlan, concurring). Sometimes, entered force, witho t participated represented adhered 1934. enlisted aid unnecessarily valuable resource. all, Constitution, notwithstanding 50 played role debates Senate's consent hearings debate. Trans World Inc. Franklin Mint 466 243, 273, 1776, 1793, 273 (1984) (STEVENS, dissenting). preratification Senate materials Stuart, 489 353, 367-368, n. 1183, 1191, 103 388 (1989). respectfully disagree Canada erroneous now gives 3(2). emerges careful See, App. 35a-37a, 47a-49a U.S.App.). (This subsequent citations appendix Government's pairs references: reference original French document, English translation General.) difficulty accepting 129-130, misplaced literalism evident responding detail literalist ritique, this: wades minutes (CITEJA) Conference, theory means. none, plenty gives. below. starter, look 8, infra, sentences completely paragraphs, "[N]evertheless." decided searches vain indication likely paragraphs combined "[N]evertheless" ("toutefois ") transition. triggering read: "without above out." 62a, 82a. transporter escape obligations issuing 70a-71a, 90a-91a. cited translation. documents, Internationale Droit Prive Aerien, 4-12 Octobre Varsovie (1930). conference "In travelers followed (via) places; carriers. contain, system carriage, hereabove, nonetheless faults servants." 258-259. conference, objects retains custody, "It duplicate; validly 259. con erence, compulsory. Finally, indications 260-264 classified secondary importance, "preparatory committee," debates, floor. wording comments session. 2, examine goods. minimum essential thing, regard, carry advantages 19-20. can, noted, (i.e., four, transportation). Y. Blanc-Dannery, La les Regles du Transport Aerien 23-37 (1933). She flatly: distinction 'the particulars.' Stated differently, obligatory." (translation mine). Quebec Appeal Airlines 53 636, 638 (1974) ("[T]he satisfies mandatory art. definition. satisfy apply") dism'd, (Can.1979). manner, understand last-minute status supra. nonobligatory (now 4(3)(d) ). cross-reference seen repeated harmonizes (this undisputed waybill), although accomplished incorporation ticket. commentators view. According Goedhuis, National Airlegislations 152-153 (1937), bound Miller, 83, 92 (1977). 1955 Protocol. Notably, governed. III, Protocol Amend Carriage Signed October 478 U.N.T.S. 371, 374-377 (1955). ratified amendments dispositive discussing far. largely dissatisfaction doubled 497 implies unamended Compare 37-38 22-28. conclude clarify language, little help ascertaining 90 (1983), Appeals' "[w]ithdrawal Denunciation [by Convention] CAB's acceptance indicates executive branch sufficient 90. owe deference Sumitomo Shoji Avagliano, 457 176, 184-185, 102 2374, 2379-2380, 72 765 (1982), States' legal required. connection political goals desirable existing passengers. Harv.L.Rev., 546-596. circumstances call Branch. Contrary belief, 134-135, 5, held. holdings adequacy express us.

Category: 7