Opinion ID: 724998
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: United States Law for Purposes of Article 25

Text: 31 The next question we must answer is what is the law of the United States for purposes of Article 25. The United States Congress has not enacted any legislation addressing the precise issue here. Thus, the question becomes whether the courts of the United States should develop and apply federal common law or whether state law provides a governing rule. In making this determination, we are mindful that the Supreme Court recently admonished lower courts to refrain from developing federal common law under cover of advancing the goal of uniformity in Warsaw Convention cases. See Zicherman, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 636. 32 In Zicherman, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 24 of the Convention as leaving the question of available remedies unresolved. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 635. The Court held that Article 24 defers to private international law for resolution of those questions. Id. More specifically, the Court characterized Article 24 as a pass-through, directing courts to apply the law that would govern in the absence of the Warsaw Convention. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 636. In Zicherman, a federal statute (the Death on the High Seas Act) supplied the rule of law. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 636. 33 More pertinently, the Zicherman Court reversed this Court's holding that federal common law, specifically general maritime law, governed such causes of action. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 636 (rev'g Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 43 F.3d 18, 21 (2d Cir.1994) (following In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, 928 F.2d 1267 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 920, 112 S.Ct. 331, 116 L.Ed.2d 272 (1991), & In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, 37 F.3d 804 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 934, 130 L.Ed.2d 880 (1995))). The Court cautioned that, notwithstanding any desire for uniformity, the Warsaw Convention does not empower United States federal courts to develop some common-law rule--under cover of general admiralty law or otherwise--that will supersede the normal federal disposition. Zicherman, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 636. 34 Thus, the Warsaw Convention does not authorize creation of an international or federal common law in derogation of otherwise applicable law. Id. Rather, where the drafters declined to enact a substantive rule of law within the Convention, the Convention merely acts as a pass-through, directing courts to apply the law that would govern in the absence of the Warsaw Convention. Id. Accordingly, we refrain from fashioning a federal common law rule in this case. 35 In the ordinary diversity case, federal courts would apply the law of the forum in which the court is located. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). In this case, however, the FSIA provides the sole basis of federal court jurisdiction. Argentine Republic, 488 U.S. at 443, 109 S.Ct. at 693. Nevertheless, state law generally controls in FSIA cases as well. Barkanic v. General Admin. of Civil Aviation of the People's Republic of China, 923 F.2d 957, 959 (2d Cir.1991). More specifically, where state law provides a rule of liability governing private individuals, the FSIA requires the application of that rule to foreign states in like circumstances. First Nat'l City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 622 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. 2591, 2597-98 n. 11, 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983). 36 Here, an international treaty governs liability between the parties to this lawsuit. However, that treaty defers to the law of the United States. Thus, we pass-through the Warsaw Convention to United States law and, under the FSIA, to state law for the rule of liability governing this dispute. See Zicherman, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 636 (suggesting that where Warsaw Convention does not supply a rule of law, the Warsaw Convention acts as a pass-through to otherwise applicable law); First Nat'l City Bank, 462 U.S. at 622 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. at 2597-98 n. 11 (concluding that the FSIA requires application of state law if state law provides a rule of liability). 37 In short, Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention defers to the law of the forum jurisdiction for a determination of what conduct constitutes wilful misconduct by an air carrier. When a Warsaw Convention action is filed in a United States district court and no federal statute governs, the law of the United States for purposes of Article 25 is the law of the state in which the district court sits. 38 In applying the law of the forum jurisdiction, federal courts must also apply that state's choice of law rules. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021-22, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941) (involving diversity case); see also Zicherman, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 635 (noting that, in determining which sovereign's law applies, [c]hoice of law is, of course, determined by the forum jurisdiction); Barkanic, 923 F.2d at 961 (holding that the FSIA incorporates state choice of law rules). But see Bickel v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 83 F.3d 127, 130-31 (6th Cir.1996) (developing and applying a federal choice of law rule to Article 24 of the Warsaw Convention). Because this action was instituted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York law, including New York choice of law rules, controls.