Court Opinion

ID: 9642772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:08:42.134047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:52.317141
License: Public Domain

(Stevens, J.,
dissenting).
B. Interpretations of the Treaty Limitation
It is well established that treaty interpretation involves a consideration of the history and intent of the contracting sovereigns. Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U.S. 423, 63 S.Ct. 672, 87 L.Ed. 877 (1943). Treaties are to be construed liberally but are not deemed to be abrogated or modified unless such intent has been clearly expressed. “Legislative silence is not sufficient to abrogate a treaty.” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint, Corp., 104 S.Ct. at 1783. Further, the Warsaw Convention being a treaty of voluntary adhesion, should the political branches of our government determine that the treaty obligations have become more onerous then the foreign policy considerations justify, the treaty’s provision for denunciation could be invoked again. For this reason, “[p]lainly, a party to a treaty of voluntary adhesion can have no need for the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus [changed circumstances], except insofar as it might wish to avoid the notice requirement [Article 39].” Id. at 1783, n. 24. If the adhering nations have no use of the doctine, then clearly private parties such as these may not invoke the doctine on their behalf. Id. at 1783.
And yet American courts, faced with the prospect of enforcing a limitation which has become outmoded and contrary to domestic law, have taken avoidance of the treaty limitation upon themselves and have arrived at an interpretation of the Warsaw system which, in cases such as those presented by Plaintiffs here, eliminates the treaty limitation altogether. There are two provisions in the Warsaw Convention which, as a sanction, strip the limitation of liability from an air carrier. First, there is the “wilful misconduct” section, Article 25, which excepts from the limitation those cases in which a plaintiff can prove that the accident generating the action was caused by the carrier’s “wilful misconduct,” which is to be defined by the court of law to *1472which the case is submitted. Since the plaintiff’s burden under this provision is a heavy one, this Article provides little ground from which to attack the limitation.
Consequently, the majority of courts have addressed the issue through judicial interpretation of Article 3.6 This provision has provided much space for judicial maneuverings and innovative interpretations. Specifically, Article 3(2) provides that:
The absence, irregularity, or loss of the passenger ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation, which shall nonetheless be subject to the rules of this convention. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability, (emphasis added).
By providing for unlimited liability where there has been “nondelivery” of a passenger ticket, this Article of the Warsaw Convention has been given a construction, in conjunction with the Montreal Agreement, which eliminates the limitation for many plaintiffs.
1. “Adequate notice”
Construing the phrase “accept a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered” to include physically delivered tickets which fail to contain “adequate notice” of the Warsaw/Montreal limitation, courts have made a way for full recovery where there was none. In a line of cases beginning with Mertens v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 341 F.2d 851 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 816, 86 S.Ct. 38, 15 L.Ed.2d 64 (1965), through the most recently decided In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland on March 14, 1980, supra, increasing importance has been placed on the passenger’s need to know that in the case of tragedy during international air travel his recovery will be severely limited. “Adequate notice,” ordinarily thought of as a domestic legal concept, has been judicially written into the Convention, in order to give “substance” to the provision regarding passenger tickets.
Ironically, a dissenting view in Lisi may have been premonition of the developments to come. Noting that “[t]he majority do not approve of the terms of the treaty and, therefore, by judicial fiat they rewrite it.” Lisi v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A., 370 F.2d at 515 (Moore, J. dissenting), the dissent termed the court’s action in what was a turning point in the law “judicial treatymaking.” Id. Further, Judge Moore noted that “[w]ere actual notice to be the requirement, every airline would have to have its agents explain to every passenger the legal effect of the treaty and, in all probability, insist that each passenger be represented by counsel who would certify that he had explained the import of the Convention to his client who, in turn, both understood and agreed to the limitation.” Id. While it may be overstated, the hypothetical does drive home the point that preoccupation with the type size has less to do with “adequate notice” than with rejection of the limitation.
Although Article 3(l)(e) specifies that a passenger ticket shall contain “[a] statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention,” Article 3(2) says nothing regarding the “adequacy” of notice or any other particulars of the required statement. A literal reading of . the provision would seem to indicate that the Convention is intended to apply regardless of whether or not the physical ticket is retained once it has been delivered into the possession of the passenger; certainly, there is no requirement that it be read by the passenger. Also, defects in the physical ticket are not to interfere with the enforceability of the liability rules. Indeed, inadequate notice through the statement could be considered an “irregularity” or defect in the passenger ticket which “shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transpor*1473tation, which shall nonetheless be subject to the rules of this convention.”
Nevertheless, in Mertens v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., the Second Circuit found that physical delivery of a ticket once the passenger has boarded the airplane is inadequate and constitutes “nondelivery” under Article 3(2). The court stated: “We read Article 3(2) to require that the ticket be delivered to the passenger in such a manner as to afford him a reasonable opportunity to take measures to protect himself against the limitation of liability____ The delivery requirement of Article 3(2) would make little sense if it could be satisfied by delivering the ticket to the passenger when the aircraft was several thousand feet in the air.” 341 F.2d at 856-857. However, the situation presented to the Mertens court involved physical delivery of the passenger ticket. While it is not surprising that an American court would find it necessary that notice, once required, be given “in such a manner as to afford [the passenger] a reasonable opportunity to take self-protective measures”, a notice requirement is nowhere within the treaty nor is the Article 3(l)(e) statement linked with the limitation.
The definition of “adequate notice” found in Mertens was dependent upon the timing of the physical delivery of the ticket. The court found that the ticket containing notice must be delivered in circumstances allowing the passenger to obtain additional protection, if desired. Given that the Mertens court had decided that the limitation was such an alarming prospect for a passenger to face, it is not surprising that the standard for permitting the limitation to stand and for protecting the passenger against the limitation became strict notice of the limitation.
In Warren v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 352 F.2d 494 (9th Cir.1965), the court followed the reasoning in Mertens and held that the very inclusion of a requirement to provide a statement of the applicability of the Convention’s limitation meant that “[t]he purpose of such a statement is to notify passengers of the applicability of the Convention, thus affording them an opportunity to take steps to protect against the limitation of liability.” 352 F.2d at 497. The Ninth Circuit expanded the Mertens holding, stating that there is an “implied requirement of Article 3(2), that delivery of the passenger ticket be made sufficiently in advance of the flight so that the passenger may, if he desires, obtain additional insurance protection.” 352 F.2d at 498.
Occurring before the Montreal Agreement became effective, and indeed, before the United States threatened denunciation of the Warsaw Convention, these cases did not rely on the nature or size of the print found on the passenger ticket. Nonetheless, the courts managed to sidestep the limitation and provide what is already proper under domestic law: full recovery to injured plaintiffs.
Then, almost immediately following these cases, again before the Montreal Agreement, focus began to be placed on the “adequacy of notice” as related to the print of the ticket. A landmark case, Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, 253 F.Supp. 237, 239 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd., 370 F.2d 508 (2d Cir.1966), aff'd. by equally divided court, 390 U.S. 455, 88 S.Ct. 1193, 20 L.Ed.2d 27 (1968), held that “compliance with the Convention requires not mere physical delivery of a ticket and check before departure but delivery of a ticket and check which notify the passenger that the provisions of the Convention which exclude or limit liability are applicable.” Having phrased the question with respect to Article 3(2) as one of “adequate notice,” the lower court in Lisi went on to find that the notice of the applicability of the liability limitations was in fact inadequate because it was printed in “microscopic type,” “camouflaged in Lilliputian print in a thicket of ‘Conditions of Contract.’ ” 253 F.Supp. at 243. Further, the court found that the required statement was “ineffectively positioned, diminutively sized, and unemphasized by bold face type, contrasting color, or anything else. The simple truth is that they are so artfully camouflaged that their presence is concealed.” Id. In effect, then, the court found that even with advance physical delivery, without a properly legible statement of the limitation, there *1474could be no delivery of the ticket. In this way, the court rewrote that provision in the convention which states that failure to include the statement of limitation on liability does not affect the applicability of the Convention’s rules. While the Lisi court may well have construed that the diminutive statement was equivalent to no statement at all, it seems at least somewhat extreme to have extrapolated this fact to non-delivery of the entire contract of carriage. Article 3(2) appears directed to the entire ticket, which is evidence that a contract has been formed, and appears much less concerned with notice of limitation on liability than American courts have imputed to the drafters of the treaty.
On appeal, the Second Circuit noted that The Convention’s arbitrary limitations on liability — which have been severely and repeatedly criticized — are advantageous to the carrier. But the quid pro quo for this one-sided advantage is delivery to the passenger of a ticket and baggage check which give him notice that on the air trip he is about to take, the amount of recovery to him or his family in the event of a crash, is limited very substantially. Thus the passenger is given the opportunity to purchase additional flight insurance or to take such other steps for his self-protection as he sees fit.
370 F.2d at 512-513. Again, the court was concerned with giving the Convention meaning; this meant giving the passenger “notice” of the position he was placing himself in by traveling internationally by air. Moreover, it has generally been agreed that the quid pro quo for the limitation is, not notice, but liability without fault. Even at the Hague Conference, liability as determined under the “wilful misconduct” provision was linked to the attempts to raise the limitation. Lowenfeld & Mendelsohn at 505. There is no evidence that the treaty drafters and signatories intended “adequate notice” to affect the operation of the treaty limitation.
There is in fact evidence to the contrary. In Ludecke v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 98 D.L.R.3d 52 (Can.1979), rev’g 53 D.L.R.3d 636 (Que.C.A.1974), aff'g in part and rev’g in part, 12 Av.Cas. (CCH) 17,191 (Que.Super.Ct.1971), the reasoning which has developed in Mertens, Warren and Lisi was considered and rejected. In Ludecke, the Supreme Court of Canada found:
the words of art. 3(2) are plain and can admit of no misunderstanding. The absence, irregularity or loss of a passenger ticket will not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage. The benefit of the limitation will be lost only where no ticket is delivered. The American cases referred to above which hold that delivery of a ticket with an irregularity, that is, a statement as required by art. 1(e) which is illegible, amounts to no delivery of a ticket, ignore this plain language and fail to give effect to a precise statement of the law. I am unable, however harsh and unreasonable I may consider the limitation, to adopt the American test.
Given the history of discontent with the limitation, it seems that the decisions rendered in these cases were directed toward correcting what is admittedly an inequitable burden as presently borne between carriers and passengers. Instead of giving weight to the history of the Warsaw/Montreal system, the courts have managed to interpret an additional waiver provision into the treaty.
Following the acceptance of the Montreal Agreement and the United States withdrawal of its Notice of Denunication, the courts have continued to view with disapproval the limitation on air carrier liability. Judicial circumvention of the treaty limitation has taken a slightly different direction upon United States acceptance of the Montreal Agreement. Instead of focusing upon the timing of physical delivery, as in Warren and Mertens, the Lisi concern with the statement, which is never referred to as “notice” in the Convention itself, and the size of the print, increasingly became the focal point for attack.
2. 10-Point type size requirement
As early as 1963, before the Montreal Agreement, the Civil Aeronautics Board promulgated regulations for air carriers *1475which required the statement of applicability of the limitation to be printed in at least 10-point modern type size on paper of contrasting color. See 14 C.F.R. § 221.175(a). In Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft v. C.A.B., 479 F.2d 912 (D.C.Cir.1973), this Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the petitioning air carrier’s argument that promulgation of the C.A.B. regulation conflicted with the Warsaw Convention and exceeded the agency’s authority. The Circuit Court first found that the terms of Article 3 do not preclude the addition of more specific requirements regarding the statement. Further, the court found that “[t]he recent trend of appellate court decisions has been to accord substance to the protections that Article 3 of the Convention intended to provide airline passengers.” 479 F.2d at 917. The court continued to find that “[t]he passenger is to receive full and effective notice of any limitations of liability so that alternative protection may be obtained.” Id. The Deutsche Lufthansa case first determined that the C.A.B. regulations are valid and do not contravene the purposes of the treaty; in making this finding the Circuit also accepted the Lisi holding that “unless adequate notice is accorded its passengers, the carrier will later be precluded from using the Convention to limit liability.” Id. at 918. In dicta surrounding the challenge to the domestic regulation, this Circuit noted that compliance with the regulation will not only provide passengers with adequate, notice of the limitations on liability imposed on them but will later enable the carrier to invoke the protection of § 3(l)(e); however this Circuit Court did not and has not yet addressed the question of what constitutes “adequate notice.”
Having gone beyond the question of whether notice is required by the treaty, the question of just what constitutes “adequate notice” was addressed by the Second Circuit in In re Air Crash Disaster of Warsaw, Poland on March U, 1980, 705 F.2d 85 (2d Cir.1983). Essentially, the Court accepted the premise that the statement must provide notice of the limitation in order for the limitation to apply. From this premise, the Court progressed to a determination of “adequate notice.” The Second Circuit decided that the “bright line” for “adequacy of notice” should be drawn at the 10-point type requirement found in both the C.A.B. regulation and the Montreal Agreement. Thus, the 10-point type requirement has been grafted onto the treaty as the next phase in the attempt to circumvent the treaty provision. In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, went so far as to construe the “special contract” that was the Montreal Agreement as part and parcel of the treaty, and indeed, to place that new, “modified” provision just where the courts wanted it to be.
Construing the Article in this way is intended to give it a meaning parallel to that found in American law, but does not accord the treaty provision the meaning evident from the negotiation and debate which led to its promulgation. Nothing in the Montreal Agreement requires that an air carrier provide the statement of liability limitation in 10-point type or lose the benefit of that limitation. Nothing in the debate or dissatisfaction with the limitation which led to the Montreal Agreement confirms the contention that “adequate notice” was an issue. At the core of the debate the dissatisfaction content with the very existence of the limitation; the erosion of the circumstances in which carriers may avail themselves of that limitation is the result of judicial frustration at the fact that courts are prevented from fully compensating plaintiffs, especially victims of air tragedies such as presented in this case. This disturbing feature of the treaty has not been eradicated through political process.
While American courts may be justifiably frustrated with the anachronism which the treaty limitation has become, it is not within the province of the judiciary to alter the quid pro quo agreed to by the political branches. It has been generally understood that in exchange for virtual strict liability against air carriers, international passengers are limited in their recovery. The “special contract” known as the Montreal Agreement supplemented the quid pro quo by raising the amount of the *1476limitation and waiving the carriers' defenses under Article 20 leaving only the presumption of liability. It also supplemented the Article 3 requirements that a statement be included in the passenger ticket by providing specifics to be provided by carriers stopping in the United States; it did not alter the quid pro quo by linking Articles 22 and 20 with Article 3.
In any case, the political branches are vested with the power and authority to make express their intent regarding the enforceability of the treaty limitations in cases where the C.A.B. regulation and Montreal Agreement directive for 10-point type has been violated. However, the United States must be explicit if it is its intent to abrogate the obligation to enforce the treaty limitation in cases such as these Plaintiffs present. The Court notes that were the violation of the regulation for 10-point type and the carrier agreement indeed crucial, a more appropriate sanction would be to prohibit the recalcitrant carriers from engaging in air transportation to or from the United States. While the Government does not have the unilateral power or authority to be rid of the treaty limitation altogether (even the earlier threat of denunciation by the largest participant in international aviation could not accomplish this) the Government could suspend the operating permits of those carriers who do not abide by our domestic laws and regulations. 49 U.S.C. § 1372. The 10-point type-size regulation is such a domestic requirement. While the carriers agreed to it in the Montreal Agreement as well, the foreign air carriers are not the contracting parties to the treaty. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ argument that this carrier was on notice that it would be stripped of limited liability for failing to provide “adequate notice” must fail. While it is indeed correct that the Montreal Agreement must be read in connection with the Warsaw Convention, the resulting Warsaw/Montreal system does not include delimiting liability for failure to provide the statement in 10-point type size. In short, the Montreal Agreement may not be read wholesale into the Warsaw Convention.
Although Plaintiffs derive their argument linking the treaty sanction to the statement from case precedent, the basic flaw in their argument is the assumption that the Montreal Agreement can operate as an amendment to the Warsaw Convention; it cannot. Under the Convention’s provisions, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability. While the limit may be raised, nothing in the “special contract” provision allows it to be completely removed. There is nothing in the “special contract” provision which allows the carrier to waive it defenses under Article 20. However, an express, written agreement to waive those defenses, which the Montreal Agreement contains, should be honored by the courts. Waiver by express agreement is not claimed by these Plaintiffs. Defendant Korean Air Lines, having agreed to the Montreal Agreement has come forward to make an express denial of waiver in these circumstances. Were the Court faced with a clear, political decision to avoid the treaty limitation where there has not been “adequate notice,” however defined, or were it faced with an express waiver, as with the Article 20 defenses, then a different decision would be possible.
Putting aside for the moment the question of whether the Montreal Agreement may amend the treaty, the principle concern in adopting the Agreement was the United States threat to withdraw from the Convention; notice of the limitation’s operation was not an issue. Where the political branches have been stymied, “judicial treatymaking” to include notice has proved irresistable to some courts. In the view of this Court, treaty revision is not the right or responsibility of the judicial branch. Moreover, the Executive Branch has recognized the continued vitality in the Warsaw Convention. In its amicus curiae brief in the Franklin Mint case, the United States cautioned against rendering the treaty limitation entirely unenforceable. While not addressing the exact question which faces this Court, the Government brief noted that “The United States remains committed to the Convention as the basic instrument governing questions of liability in the inter*1477national aviation industry.” Amicus Curiae Brief of the United States, at 2. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 104 S.Ct. 1776, 80 L.Ed.2d 273 (1984). As the Supreme Court noted in its decision in the case, “when the parties to a treaty continue to assert its vitality a private person who finds the continued existence of the treaty inconvenient may not invoke the doctrine on their behalf.” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint, 104 S.Ct. at 1783. Since the branches of Government vested by the Constitution with the power to make and break treaty obligations continue to assert the utility of the Convention, and to assert the enforceability of the treaty limitation, these private citizens may not, indeed, the Court may not define the treaty limitation out of existence, even in narrow circumstances. That task, difficult though it has proven to be, has been assigned to the legislative and executive branches of our Government.
3. Immediate Payment of $75,000
In addition to seeking unlimited liability against Korean Air Lines, Plaintiffs have requested an immediate payment of $75,000 as partial damages. Plaintiffs misconceive the nature of the limitation. The $75,000 limitation on air carrier liability is a maximum, not a minimum, on the amount of damages which a plaintiff may receive, once he has proven his damages. While the Montreal Agreement subjects air carriers to virtual strict liability, air carriers are not automatically liable for an amount of $75,000. The limitation does not operate as would insurance; Plaintiffs are still required to prove the amount of their damages and are entitled to receive only the amount which they can prove.
Moreover, the nature and amount of unliquidated damages cannot be proved in a motion for summary judgment. Since the amount of damages must be established on an individual basis, there are still material issues of fact which remain to be tried. Defendant cannot be precluded from conducting discovery with which to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims. There being material issues of fact with respect to the amount of individual damages, it would be entirely inappropriate to award the maximum damages. The request for immediate payment of $75,000 must be denied. CONCLUSION
“Judicial predilection for their own views as to limitation of liability should not prevail over the limitations fixed by the legislative and executive branches of Government even though this result is obtained by ostensibly adding to the treaty a requirement of actual understanding notice.” Lisi v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, 370 F.2d at 515 (Moore, J., dissenting). The Montreal Agreement is not a negotiated amendment to the Warsaw Convention. Even if the Agreement could rise to the level of an amendment to the treaty, which it cannot, the principle of law requiring clear expression of the intent of the political branches would prevent a finding that the treaty is to be abrogated. Plaintiffs’ construction is not supported by the negotiating history of the Warsaw/Montreal System.
It may be arguable that American courts have been justified in arriving at the conclusion that the Montreal Agreement affects the application of the treaty sanction since the Agreement applies only to transportation including the United States; however, such an interpretation rejects the fact of the clear intransigence of a majority of High Contracting Parties to the Convention with regard to delimiting carrier liability. There is every indication that the majority of the more than 120 nations adhering to the Convention intend to continue the special protection afforded international carriers, even at the expense of international passengers. In light of this intransigence, it is especially inappropriate for the Court to interpret the treaty provisions in such a way as to relieve the United States of its treaty obligations. In addition, the Montreal Agreement contains no expression of the carriers intent to waive the limitation. In fact, it makes no mention at all of the sanction to be imposed for a carrier’s failure to include proper notice to passengers. Making tolerable an intolerable treaty provision is simply not the province of the courts. Therefore, for the foregoing rea*1478sons, the motion for partial summary judgment against Korean Air Lines shall be DENIED.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum entered this date, it is by the Court this 25th day of July, 1985,
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. is DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., is entitled to avail itself of the limitation on damages provided by the Warsaw Convention and raised to $75,000 by the Montreal Agreement; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiffs may not receive immediate payment of $75,000, there being material issues of fact with respect to the amount of unliquidated damages.

. The limitation has been attacked on constitutional grounds as well, see, e.g., In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia on April 11, 1974, 684 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir.1982); Burdell v. Canadian Pacific Airways, 10 Av.Cas. (CCH) ¶ 18,151 (Ill.Cir.Ct. 1968).