Document: 516 U.S. 217116 S.Ct. 629133 L.Ed.2d 596 Marjorie ZICHERMAN, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.KOREAN AIR LINES CO., LTD. KOREAN Petitioner, v. al. Nos. 94-1361, 94-1477. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 7, 1995. Decided Jan. 16, 1996.* Syllabus ** In a suit brought under Article 17 Warsaw Convention governing international air transportation, petitioners Zicherman and Mahalek were awarded loss-of-society damages for death their mutual relative who was passenger on respondent Korean Air Lines' Flight KE007 when it shot down over Sea Japan. The Second Circuit set aside award, holding that general maritime law supplied substantive compensatory to be applied in an action that, such law, plaintiff can recover loss society only if he decedent's dependent at time death. court concluded had not established status remanded District determine whether decedent. Held: 17, may plane crash high seas, within meaning Death High Seas Act (DOHSA). Pp. 632-637. (a) permits compensation legally cognizable harm, but leaves specification what harm is domestic applicable forum's choice-of-law rules. That does itself resolve issue compensable shown by text Articles 24, Convention's negotiating drafting history, contracting states' post-ratification understanding Convention, virtually unanimous view expert commentators. 632-635. (b) Having determined next logical question would which sovereign's law. this case, need engage inquiry, because parties have agreed unresolved governed present case States. final then particular applies. occurred here falls literal terms DOHSA § 761, well those apply airplane crashes. Since recovery 761 limited pecuniary damages, 762, cannot DOHSA. Moreover, where applies, neither state nor provide basis damages. Because are entitled DOHSA, reach whether, dependency prerequisite 635-637. 43 F.3d 18 (C.A.2 1994), affirmed part reversed part. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion C ourt. Paul Needham, Boston, MA, No. 94-1361. Andrew J. Harakas, White Plains, NY, Justice SCALIA Court. 1 This presents Unification Certain Rules Relating International Transportation Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, T.S. 876 (1934) (reprinted note following U.S.C.App. 1502 (1988 ed.)), resulting from seas. 2 * On September 1, 1983, Lines KE007, en route Anchorage, Alaska, Seoul, South Korea, strayed into space Soviet Union All 269 persons board killed, including Muriel Kole. Petitioners Mahalek, Kole's sister mother, respectively, sued Co., Ltd. (KAL) Southern New York. Petitioners' amended complaint contained three counts, entitled, "Warsaw Convention," "Death Act," "Conscious Pain Suffering." At count, sought "judgment against KAL grief mental anguish, companionship, conscious pain suffering." App. 29. 3 Along with other federal-court actions arising out crash, petitioners' transferred Columbia consolidated proceedings common issues liability. There, jury found destruction proximately caused "willful misconduct" flight crew, thus lifting $75,000 cap See Art. 25, 3020; Order Civil Aeronautics Board Approving Increases Liability Limitations Hague Protocol, reprinted ed.). $50 million punitive KAL. Appeals upheld finding misconduct," vacated permit re Disaster Sept. 932 F.2d 1475, 1479-1481, 1484-1490 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied, 502 994, 112 616, 116 638 (1991). individual cases Judicial Panel Multidistrict Litigation original transferor courts trial damage issues. 4 York, moved determination (DOHSA), 41 537 ed.), 46 seq., prescribed proper claimants recoverable did society. denied motion held, inter alia, could "love, affection, companionship." 807 F.Supp. 1073, 1086-1088 (S.D.N.Y.1992). amount $70,000 $28,000 Mahalek.1 5 award. Applying its prior deci sions Lockerbie, Scotland, Dec. 21, 1988, 928 1267, 1278-1279(CA2) (Lockerbie I), sub nom. Rein Pan American World Airways, Inc., 920, 331, 272 (1991), 37 804 1994) II), Inc. Pagnucco, 513 ----, 115 934, 130 880 (1995), held Convention. 18, 21-22 (1994). Then, decision Lockerbie II, decedent F.3d, 22. as matter status, therefore her award; Ibid. 6 petition certiorari, contended requirement recovering cross-petition, allow regardless dependency. We granted certiorari. II 7 forth official translation French text, provides follows: 8 "The carrier shall liable sustained event or wounding any bodily injury suffered passenger, accident so took place aircraft course operations embarking disembarking." 3018 (emphasis added). 9 first principal before us made provision. 10 It obvious English word "damage" "harm"—or "dommage "2 extremely wide range phenomena, medical expenses incurred result injuries (for every legal system tort compensation), distress some stranger reads about paper no compensation). seriously maintained uses term broadest sense, exploding liability beyond world allows, farthest reaches denominated "harm." reject initial proposal we simply look dictionary definitions term's "plain meaning." Brief 7-9. 11 There two thinkable alternatives that. First, ultimately suggest: " means recognized assert included materiel (pecuniary various sorts) also moral (non-pecuniary sorts, society). support approach, point involving guided usage: France Saks, 470 392, 105 1338, 84 289 (1985) (interpreting "accident "). Eastern Airlines, Floyd, 499 530, 111 1489, 113 L .Ed.2d 569 (1991) "lesion corporelle What here, however, will usage vel non. Because, earlier discussed, embraces harms compensate, must acknowledged understood distinctively sense—that is, mean harm. nicer question, critical one establishes content concept "legally harm" accepted 1929. No ours precedent adoption detail. looked indeed meant (as been translated) "bodily injury"—not subsequent (equivalent here) injury" encompassed psychic injury. U.S., 536-540, S.Ct., 1494-1496, And once terminology referred unforeseen event, further inquire consider unforeseen; judgment ourselves. 405-407, 1345-1346, 12 particularly implausible "the shared expectations parties," id., 399, 1342, mere use language effect precise rule constitutes Those involved negotiation ignorant fact varies widely jurisdiction jurisdiction, even statute single jurisdiction. Just "unlikely" Floyd signatories confer cause available unrecognized many nations, see 540, 1496, find unlikely they 17's require elements elsewhere, forbid elsewhere. Many signatory Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Union, Sweden not, years after recognize non-pecuniary wrongful death, Encyclopedia Comparative Law: Torts, ch. 9, pp. 15-18 (A. Tunc ed.1972); supra, 544-545, n. 10, 1498, 10. 13 alternative, think realistic, believe usage) harm," adjudicating specify cognizable. unusual disposition. Even our statutes generally "damages," reimbursement "injury," leave decide sorts compensable. See, e.g., Miles Apex Marine Corp., 498 19, 32, 317, 325-326, 275 (1990) (Jones Act, 688 "action damages" "[a]ny seaman suffer personal injury," loss); Michigan Central R. Co. Vreeland, 227 59, 71, 33 192, 196, 57 L.Ed. 417 (1913) (former Employers' Apr. 22, 1908, makes employer "liable . death," Broan Mfg. Associated Distributo rs, 923 1232, 1235-1236 (C.A.6 1991) (Lanham Trade-Mark 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), "any sustained," future lost profits); Phelps White, 645 So.2d 698, 703 (La.Ct.App.3d Cir.1994) (specifying allowable La. Civ.Code Ann., 2315.2 (West Supp.1995), providing "damages result" death); Department Ed. Blevins, 707 S.W.2d 782, 783 (Ky.1986) (Kentucky Rev. Ann. 411.130 (Michie 1992), recovered" emotional distress). 14 interpretation confirmed another provision expressly translated provides: "(1) covered articles 19 however founded, subject conditions limits convention. 16 "(2) article provisions preceding paragraph apply, without prejudice questions right bring respective rights." 3020 added).3 most natural reading affect compensated for. answered selected states. contend 24 refers parties' "respective rights," defers "procedural" has standing sue how proceeds award should divided among eligible claimants. seem procedural; limiting procedural render superfluous, since 28(2) "[q]uestions procedure submitted." 3021. More importantly, 24(2) produce strange regime 1929 (embodied Convention) determines accidents indemnified, while current indemnity When presented equally plausible leads more comprehensible left them—we decline embrace melange proposed petitioners. treaty ratified land, Const., 2, agreement sovereign powers, traditionally considered aids history (travaux preparatoires) parties. Both these sources confirm statements know directly discuss Comi te Technique d'Experts Juridiques Aeriens (CITEJA), preparatory work Conferences (1925 Paris, Warsaw) produced report May 15, 1928, Committee stated: "It asked possible, respect, category reparations. 20 "Although seemed very interesting, possible satisfactory solution knowing exactly legislation countries. studied later on, persons, according national laws, take carrier, elucidated." Report Third Session Henry de Vos, CITEJA Reporter (May 1928), Technical Legal Experts Questions 106 1928). 21 To same passage accompanying draft: 22 upon whom devolves are, reparation. double problem, esteemed private regulated independantly [sic] Convention." Vos (Sept. Conference Private Aeronautical Law Minutes, 255 (R. Horner & D. Legrez transl. 1975). 23 make clear recover, receive, regarded intertwined; both "private law"—i.e., area jurisprudence call "conflict laws," dealing application varying laws disputes interstate component. unpersuaded reliance comment delegate Georges Ripert, asserting, rejecting carriers' vicarious liability, required." Id., 66. Reply 2-3. Not remark authority submissions committee, generalization rather than statement focused specifically here: governs "category reparations." demonstrably wrong boot, incontrovertible requires 25 conduct displays recoverable—so long consist ("dommage survenu")—are Some countries, England, Germany adopted govern types case. P. Haanappel, Right Sue Cases 66, 72, 74 (1981); E. Giemulla, Schmid Ehlers, 39, (1992); German Concerning Navigation (Luft VG) January 1959, Arts. 35-36, 38, Senate Commerce, Laws Treaties World, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 766-768 (Comm. Print 1965); Mankiewicz, Regime Carrier ¶ 187, 160-161 (1981). Canada setting 24(2), provincial 70-71. Quebec rejected argument per mits unrecoverable Dame Surprenant Canada, [1973] C.A. 107, 117-118, 126-127 (Ct.App.Quebec) (opinion Deschenes, J.). But Preston Hunting Transport Ltd., [1956] Q.B. 454, 461-462 (granting considering 24). Finally, commentators type H. Drion, Limitation Liabilities 111, 125-126 (1954); 33; Goedhuis, National AirLegislations (1937); 160-161; G. Miller, Transport: System Municipal Courts 125 (1977); Cha, Carrier's Passengers Law, L.Rev. 56-57 (1936). III 26 logically turn law" alluded last-quoted excerpt Report. Choice course, forum Scoles Hay, Conflict 3.56 (1982), normally confronting here. spared agree determined) itself, 27 unresolved: rule? Circuit, "maintain uniform causes arise occurs land 21-22. not. As contains question; empower develop common-law rule—under cover admiralty otherwise—that supersede normal federal Congress choose enact special Warsaw-Convention cases, countries done. __. Absent legislation, nothing pass-through, authorizing absence little doubt Section 28 "Whenever person act, neglect, default occurring seas marine league shore State, Columbia, Territories dependencies States, representative maintain district admiralty, exclusive benefit wife, husband, parent, child, vessel, person, corporation ensued." 29 provision, Executive Jet Aviation, Cleveland, 409 249, 263-264, 93 493, 502-503, 34 454 (1972). 762 "shall fair just whose brought." 762. Thus, Offshore Logistics, Tallentire, 477 207, 232-233, 2485, 499-2500, 91 174 (1986) Mobil Oil Corp. Higginbotham, 436 618, 625-626, 98 2010, 2015, 56 581 (1978), damages.4 30 argue concern expressed Circuit: "a cases." 21. They urge craft all suits Undoubtedly primary function foster uniformity travel, 552, 1502, discussion above clear, imposition feasible. __-__. own authorized pursue derogation otherwise argue, effect, implicit authorization create between over-land over-sea though vast discrepancies untouched. unlikely. 31 supply unintended "double cap." limit (except willful misconduct), combined prohibiting sufficiently deter misconduct. unpersuaded. unquestionably envisions law; Congress, Court, alone combination inadequate deterrence. 32 conclude Where, supplies Accordingly, portion permitting she establish reversed, vacating affirmed. 35 ordered. Together 94-1477, Zicherman, Individually Executrix Estate Kole, certiorari court. syllabus prepared Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. $161,000 survivors' grief, $16,000 inheritance $100,000 suffering. inheritance. None awards reads: "Le transporteur est responsable du dommage survenu cas mort, blessure ou toute autre lesion subie par un voyageur lorsque l'accident qui le s'est produit bord l'aeronef au cours toutes d'embarquement debarquement." 3005. Dans les prevus aux responsabilite, quelque titre que ce soit, ne peut etre exercee dans limites prevues la presente l'article s'appliquent egalement dispositions l'alinea precedent, sans des personnes ont droit d'agir leurs droits respectifs." 3006. calls Court's mother party suit, grant trial, Romero Terminal Operating 358 354, 371, 28, 79 468, 479, 368 (1959), contradicts allowance suffering 215, 2490, (1986). challenged none rulings

Category: 7