Vol ume 3, Issu e 1
AVIATION HAPPENINGS
SPRING 2017
In this issue:
Air Carrier Not Responsible for Rancid Cheese Under Montreal Convention
Southern District of New York Adopts Broad Interpretation of “Accident” For Airline Liability Under
Montreal Convention
Pennsylvania Appellate Court Dismisses Suit Arising from Portugal Plane Crash on Forum Non
Conveniens Grounds
Washington State Supreme Court Rejects Field Preemption of State Product Liability Claims by Federal
Aviation Regulations
Forensic Engineer’s Expert Testimony on Mobile Stairs Fall Excluded Under Daubert
Personal Jurisdiction Based on Registration to Do Business Remains a Hot-Button Issue
The United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Super. Ct.
The National Transportation Safety Board Heralds Collision Avoidance Technology in Light of Inherent
Limitations of “See and Avoid”
Drone Law Update
Air Carrier Not Responsible for Rancid
Cheese Under Montreal Convenon
Poonam Sethi, New York
psethi@schnader.com
In Best Value Kosher Foods, Inc., v.
American Airlines, Inc., plain sued in the
Eastern District of New York for general negligence in
the handling of a shipment of cheese from Paris to
New York. The pares entered into an agreement
for American Airlines to transport the cheese, with
specic guidelines as to the storage and handling.
The pares were subject to the Montreal Conven-
on, as both the United States and France are signa-
tories. The Montreal Convenon includes specic
provisions for the loss or destrucon of cargo sus-
tained during carriage by air. Airlines are strictly lia-
ble for damage to cargo unless the destrucon was
caused by an act by a public authority in connecon
with the entry, exit or transit of cargo.
The undisputed facts are as follows: on December
22, 2015, the cheese was delivered to American in
Paris and arrived in New York the following day. On
December 24, 2015, at 6:30 a.m., American noed
the plain of the arrival of the shipment. Plain
was unable to pick up the delivery unl six days later,
on December 30, 2015, at which me the cheese had
become rancid. The shipment was put on hold by the
Food and D rug Administraon (F.D.A) and the U.S.
Customs and Border Protecon for inspecons. The
dispute arose out of whether the shipment was
refrigerated while in American’s possession.
American moved for summary judgment, arguing it
had no duty to refrigerate the cheese aer the cargo
arrived in New York and that plain failed to prove
the condion of the cheese before it was delivered
to American Airlines in Paris.
The Court found the plain failed to raise a
material issue of fact and was unable to aest to the
condion of the cheese at the me it delivered the
cheese to American. Further, the Court found that
the damage to the cheese was caused by govern-
ment inspecon and those inspecons by the FDA
fell within the excepon to the Montreal Convenon
for damages to cargo. American Airlines had
promptly noed the plain that the shipment
arrived in New York. Although American gratuitously
placed the cargo in a cooler, it did not give rise to a
duty for American to refrigerate the cheese inde-
nitely. The Court found six days was too long to
expect American to refrigerate the cheese at a spe-
cic low temperature and granted defendant’s mo-
on for summary judgment. Best Value Kosher
Foods, Inc., v. American Airlines, Inc., 16-CV-2263,
2016 WL 7217639 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2016).
