Document: 540 U.S. 644 OLYMPIC AIRWAYSv.HUSAIN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE HANSON, DECEASED, ET AL. No. 02-1348. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 12, 2003. Decided February 24, 2004. Under Article 17 the Warsaw Convention (Convention), an air carrier is liable for a passenger's death or bodily injury caused by "accident" occurring on international flight. "Accident" refers to "unexpected unusual event happening that external passenger," not "the own internal reaction usual, normal, and expected operation aircraft." Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392, 405, 406. While Rubina Husain (hereinafter respondent) her husband, Dr. Hanson, were traveling overseas, she requested petitioner Olympic Airways provide seats away from smoking section because Hanson had asthma was sensitive secondhand smoke. After boarding, they discovered their only three rows in front section. A flight attendant refused respondent's requests move Hanson. As noticeably increased, walked toward plane get fresher air. He then received medical assistance but died. Respondents filed wrongful-death suit state court, which removed federal court. The District found Hanson's death, Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that, under Saks' definition "accident," attendant's refusal reseat clearly him, unexpected light industry standards, policy, simple nature accommodation. Held: conduct here constitutes 17. Pp. 649-657. (a) parties do dispute disagree about should be focus inquiry. Court's reasoning Saks sheds whether assist passenger crisis proper In focused "what causes can considered accidents," S., at 404, did suggest one could "accident." Indeed, recognized "[a]ny product chain causes." Id., Thus, purposes inquiry, plaintiff need prove "some link passenger." Ibid. 649-652. (b) Petitioner does unexpected, arguing irrelevant argues ambient cigarette smoke relevant producing event. Petitioner's neglects reality multiple interrelated factual events often combine cause given injury. Any these happenings may — so long as it constitute separate occasions correctly "link chain" leading his death. argument failure act cannot affirmative acts are also unavailing. rejection explicit request would "event" "happening" terms' ordinary usual definitions, other provisions there no distinction between action inaction ultimate liability issue, see, e. g., Art. 25. Finally, although improperly seemed approve negligence-based approach accident party disputes court's holding unusual," operative language correct analysis. 652-657. 316 F. 3d 829, affirmed. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, dissenting opinion, O'CONNOR, joined Parts I II, post, p. 658. BREYER, took part consideration decision case. 1 CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 Andrew J. Harakas argued petitioner. With him briefs Diane Westwood Wilson. 3 H. Bartow Farr III respondents. brief Richard G. Taranto, Gerald Sterns, Susie Injijian. 4 Barbara McDowell States amicus curiae urging affirmance. Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Kneedler, Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., William Taft IV, Kirk K. Van Tine.* 5 JUSTICE THOMAS Court. 6 (Convention)1 imposes occurred connection with 392 (1985), explained term issue we must decide condition precedent satisfied when carrier's causation resulting pre-existing being aggravated exposure normal aircraft cabin. We conclude is. 7 * following facts taken findings, which, unchallenged either party, accept true. December 1997, Abid wife, respondent), traveled children another family San Francisco Athens Cairo vacation. During stopover New York, learned first time allowed its passengers flights. Because suffered smoke, respondent obtained experienced problems flights Cairo. 8 For return flights, arrived early airport order nonsmoking seats. Respondent showed check-in agent physician's letter explaining "has [a] history recurrent anaphylactic reactions," App. 81, asked ensure uneventful. 9 boarding Francisco, located economy-class advised Maria Leptourgou, petitioner, sit area, said, "`You have him.'" 116 Supp. 2d 1121, 1125 (ND Cal. 2000). told "`have seat.'" all boarded prior takeoff, again Ms. Leptourgou he "`allergic smoke.'" replied "`totally full'" "too busy" help. 10 Shortly after began soon surrounded spoke third time, stating, my husband here.'" 1126. refused, stating full. switch passenger, ask herself, without crew's assistance. even if available seat cockpit business class, any assistance.2 11 About two hours into flight, increased behind new inhaler been using empty. moved some leaning against chair near galley gestured emergency kit. returned gave shot epinephrine. She awoke Umesh Sabharwal, allergist, whom traveling. Sabharwal epinephrine administer CPR oxygen. died shortly thereafter.3 1128. 12 California case held Leptourgou's constituted within meaning Applying term, court reasoned and, "blatant disregard standards airline policies," usual. 2d, 1134. 13 agreed "was accommodation." 837 (2002). granted certiorari, 538 1056 (2003), now affirm. II 14 begin Convention, provides:4 15 "The shall damage sustained wounding place board course operations embarking disembarking." 49 Stat. 3018.5 16 text define context used "illuminating." U.S., 399. nevertheless discerned Convention's text, structure, well subsequent Convention. Neither contests Rather, differ 18 addressed "`loss hearing proximately aircraft's pressurization system'" "`accident.'" 395. concluded not, "own reaction" noted textual clues First, distinguishes injuries destruction loss baggage "occurrence." 398. difference implies different Second, significant fact focuses "accident caused" rather than occurrence satisfy And recognizing responsibility read treaty manner "consistent shared expectations contracting parties," ibid., looked French legal describe injury, usually defined "fortuitous, unusual, unintended event." 400. 19 Accordingly, "an 406.6 emphasized "should flexibly applied assessment circumstances surrounding injuries." 405. further contemplated intentional fall 17,7 interpretation comports provision Convention.8 such, characterized encompassing more unintentional conduct. 20 analysis determining observed "embraces injuries" unusual." stated able B 21 inquiry "injury event," Reply Brief 4, according presence petitioner's policies permitted contends resulted namely, attack aircraft. inaction, whereas requires 22 disagree. initial matter, note challenge Appeals finding times refusing standard company policy. 1133. instead Consequently, dispositively determine qualified "unusual unexpected" assume this opinion. 23 misplaced. doubt cabin during might "normal" question. But event" looks precise `event' injury" 14. very will necessarily interrelate particular makes difficult define, coherent non-question-begging way, single 24 claim contrary say: "Looking purely description events, aggravating remaining assigned non-smoking exposed allegedly asthmatic death," "not violation standards," 9-10. ignores "factual `event,'" 14, "`link chain'" led 1135. statement nothing bald assertion, unsupported law argument. 25 An example illustrates why emphasis Suppose mistakenly assigns middle section, notice until has departed. here, despite repeated move. hypothetical case, appear "[l]ooking [the passenger] . death." 24. To argue otherwise, misassignment simply beg is, contributing passenger. instant same said: both contributed 26 "event[s] happening[s]" uses terms, perhaps tort negligence respondents advocate, vigorously rejects, regime applies happening." (emphasis added). definitions terms. See American Heritage Dictionary 635 (3d ed. 1992) ("event": "[s]omething takes place; occurrence"); Black's Law 554-555 (6th 1990) "Something happens"); Webster's International 885 (2d 1949) taking occurring; occurrence" "[t]hat comes, arrives, happens").9 27 Moreover, fallacy position take form illustrated example. inexplicably collapses stops breathing doctor informs crew life saved lands hour. policy divert nearest otherwise faces imminent If 30 minutes suitable airport, chooses continue cross-country "[t]he notion staggering." McCaskey Continental Airlines, Inc., 159 562, 574 (SD Tex. 2001).10 28 Confirming interpretation, liability. example, provides 22's cap apply "wilful misconduct such default carrier's] as, accordance submitted, equivalent wilful misconduct." 3020 added).11 imposed lifts caps once found, together tend show give rise 20(1) clear "due care" defense unavailable failed "all necessary measures avoid damage." 3019. These basis 29 created focusing stated: face known, serious risk satisfies `accident' reasonable alternatives exist substantially minimize implementing unreasonably interfere airplane." 3d, 837. Admittedly, seem approach. However, Circuit's foregoing reasons, judgment 31 It ordered. 32 BREYER Notes: Warren L. Dean, Transport Association America, reversal. Unification Certain Rules Relating Transportation Air, Oct. 1929, 3000, T. 876 (1934), § 40105 know representations, actually There unoccupied seats, most economy "non-revenue passengers," seated class farther seat. 1126 religious autopsy performed governing French. cite official English translation before Senate consented ratification 1934. 3014;Air 397 (1985). established prima facie showing opportunity impossible airline] measures." creates presumption shifts burden lack 20. Lowenfeld & Mendelsohn, 80 Harv. Rev. 497, 521 (1967). 22(1) amount recoverable 25(1) removes misconduct" agent, acting scope employment. 3019, 3020. Additionally, enables reduce comparative negligence. Seeid., least plausible yet distinct definitions. On hand, inSaks, World College (4th 1999) ("a intended"); see 2000) ("[l]ack intention; chance"); "unusual" "unexpected," result not. ("an fortuitous, unforeseen, unlooked event, "if wholly partly through human agency, person Dictionary, supra, ("[a]n undesirable "[a]n unforeseen incident"). Although glance plausible, neither adopted careful examination cited approvingly several lower opinions where torts committed terrorists "accidents" "broa[d]" 17Ibid. (citing cases). Specifically, absence best included realm dissent cites cases our sister signatories England Australia —Deep Vein Thrombosis Travel Group Litigation, [2004] Q. B. 234, Qantas Ltd. Povey, [2003] VSCA 227, ¶ 17, 2003 WL 23000692, (Dec. 23, 2003) (Ormiston, A.), respectively suggests defer matter. conclusion inconsistent Deep Wales Appeal commented accident. reasoned: properly mere inertia, non-event. alternative formed complex incident, whereby described unexpected." B., 254, 50. extent courts Litigation Povey reasoning, reject those reasons body circumstance, hesitant "follo[w]" intermediate appellate signatories, 658 (SCALIA, dissenting). This especially true substantial distinctions cases, 248, (confronting allegations "failure warn [deep-vein thrombosis], advise precautions minimise risk"); 3, (noting alleged "any information warning thrombosis] risk"), respective last resort House Lords High speak. erroneously lie "harsh results,"post, 664 (opinion J.), ensue. merely certain vital steps quite naturally routine usage language, "event Montreal Protocol Amend relating Carriage (1975) amends replacing "done intent recklessly knowledge probably result," airline's employee "within employment." Exec. Rep. 105-20, (1998). 1998, advice consent protocol, entered force March 1999. SeeEl Al Israel Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 155, 174, n. (1999). 1997-1998, apply. O'CONNOR joins dissenting. When interpret treaty, accord judgments "`considerable weight.'" 404 True canon, previous carefully foreign law. See, El 173-174 (1999); Eastern Inc. Floyd, 499 530, 550-551 (1991); 404. Today's stands out how partners resolved issues us. sudden insularity striking, since recent years canvassed prevailing nations (at Western European nations) Constitution framing nations' role enforcing. Atkins Virginia, 536 304, 316-317, (2002) (whether Eighth Amendment prohibits execution mentally retarded); Lawrence Texas, 539 558, 576-577 (2003) Fourteenth criminalization homosexual conduct). One thought courts' interpretations governments jointly ours, actual applying, (to put mildly) relevant. abstemiousness regard fare consequence: Within past year, rendered decisions squarely odds today's holding. offers convincing explanation followed, respectfully dissent. holds ConventionAnte, 654-657. derives principle says encompasses failures like That far clear. word senses. something unintentional, "on purpose" in, hundred typing monkeys' verbatim reproduction War Peace accident." not: say involved "train accident," derailment intentionally caused. notes, ante, 651, 6, latter former. crucial because, while former sense ("I accidentally left stove on"), questionable. Two cannot. England's Appeal, Master Rolls relied heavily Abramson Japan Airlines Co., 739 130 (CA3 1984), analyzed half-dozen non-English decisions, follows: "A critical appeal act, omission, article Often results accident, forms series omissions easy distinguish omissions. however, itself ever event; Inaction antithesis 247, (Lord Phillips, M. R.). Six months later, division Victoria, Australia, likewise extensive agreed: substance something, characterised happening, whatever concomitant background advise. specific required step flying aircraft, picking up setting down passengers, lead requisite kind thus purpose article. pilot use device manner, let landing wheels chance omission adjust level pressurisation, lead, held, venture immediate disastrous consequence dangerous belly drop pressurisation." 23000692 A.). can, should, look provisions. Foreign constructions evidence original understanding parties. impute strive consistently. (The preamble specifically acknowledges advantage regulating uniform conditions carrier." 3014 added).) disagree, surely owe conclusions reached courtesy respectful consideration. nonetheless dismisses footnote responding Ante, 655-656, 9. former, claims (choosing words carefully) "conclusion" reaches inconsistent" 655 reader think contention Rolls' agree (To repeat opinion: "Inaction 25.) What distinguished Appeals' below (announced assumed involved, discuss action-inaction distinction) ground "insistence [Hanson] remain area smoke." 50.1 explain below, Part infra, theory work fact, insist seated. ignore detail being. point recover, irrelevant, though indispensable, occurred. charts exactly opposite direction, spending pages irrelevant. agrees involves action, needlessly us conflict deciding then-irrelevant accident? suffice hold end there. Whether consensus important; recover husband's stand, core holdings rationes decidendi inconsistent"; completely opposite.2 follow ofDeep today theirs. Merely pointing dictionaries "`event'" "`occurrence'" "`[s]omething happens,'" 655, hardly resolves problem; reformulates question includes nonevents) nonoccurrences nonhappenings). Equally unavailing reliance, 656-657, (which "default" willful misconduct) precludes due-care fails measures" injury). analytical error invoking contemplate itself. requirement. negligently forgets gear, causing crash killing board, recovery presumptively (because deaths accident), inapplicable pilot's negligent deaths), Similarly, prevent individual knows terrorist, who later shoots damages lifted (the shooting) boarding) coincide. Without invented restriction itself, based loses force. refuses collapses, 656: persuasive reductio ad absurdum Eleventh already ruled circumstances. Krys Lufthansa German 119 1515, 1517-1522, 1527-1528 (1997). construction fallacious harsh results. denies remedy, outrageous grievous occurred, unless Whatever means, certainly equate "outrageous injury." mistake relief whenever traditional so. contrary, principal object promote growth fledgling limiting sue. 170-171. Unless liability, trivial, cf. Lee 355 386, 387 (CA5 2004) (suit "loss `refreshing, memorable vacation'"), cries redress. Were confronting instance, persuade me view. countries rejected it, less compelling Court's. sufficient elements support recovery. implausible; earlier, suggested insistence analysis, miscomprehends Preliminarily, rationale consistently referred seated, "failure" "refusal" him. 1131-1135 Its findings infected erroneous assumption inaction. affirm harmless. True, response request, insisted 1125. still implicit second request. responses ground, preparing off. Husain's made started different. seated; invited them walk around search someone willing switch. explicitly pleas help ignoring them, transform action. acknowledged acknowledgment, Unlike responses, assist, make pretakeoff in-flight undermines respects. reseating related behavior. id., 1132 (testimony chief reseated immediately request); ibid. "who become ill flights" added)). establish attendants busy securing departure anyone smoking. words, stay reason regard. require among requests. takeoff hence compensable but-for (had lived, just lived flight); proximate cause, predicate became moot free about. complication, remand Court: attendant, aloft, find invite empty seat, affirmatively represented misrepresentation unexpected; question) reasonably said i. e., searched unwilling lie. consider instance plane's full, independent reseat, Tragic been, justify putting needless quotes discussion. Here what full: "I difficulty but, respect, judge events. unexpected. existence zone provided suitably placed threatened health proved, life. direct unnecessary could, view, 50 thatDeep merit slight decided resort, 9, supreme courts. decision. authored Rolls, civil many influential Lord. Smith, Bailey Gunn Modern Legal System 250 2002); Denning: Life Law, BBC News (Mar. 5, 1999), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/290996.stm (as visited Jan. 20, 2004, Clerk file). "substantial distinctions" beside point. rule arise contexts, differences logic uncertain terms accident; consisting deep vein thrombosis Maintaining deference rules adopt. enough factually identical cases.

Category: 7