Opinion ID: 488008
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tort and contract claims

Text: 49 Appellant alleges USAir committed the tort of outrage, breached its contract of transportation, and by its policy and actions violated a common law obligation ... to provide equal and courteous service to all. Complaint at 3; Supplemental Appendix for Appellee at 3. 50 The district court found that appellant had not alleged facts sufficient to show conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 46 comment d (1965). There is no basis for concluding that this finding was improper. 51 Anderson cites no specific contract term or condition as being in breach. USAir's Terms of Transportation permit removal of a passenger who attempts to interfere with a flight crew's duties or jeopardizes the safety or comfort of other passengers. Liability is limited to a ticket refund, which was duly given to appellant. 52 A state law obligation to give courteous service, even if applicable in the instant case, is expressly preempted by a 1978 amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, which in pertinent part states: 53 [N]o State or political subdivision thereof ... shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier having authority under subchapter IV of this chapter to provide air transportation. 54 49 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1305(a)(1) (Supp. III 1985) (emphasis added) (amending 49 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1305(a)(1) (1982) (substituting air transportation for interstate air transportation)); see also Hingson, 743 F.2d at 1415-16 (claim based on state law entitling blind persons to full and equal access preempted by Aviation Act).