Vol ume 2, Issu e 5 a
AVIATION HAPPENINGS
WINTER 2016-2017
In this issue:
Court Dismisses State Law Negligence Claim Against Carrier as Preempted by Montreal Convention
Update on AVCO Corporation v. Sikkelee and Preemption Under the Federal Aviation Act
California Court Expands Specific Personal Jurisdiction
Specific Jurisdiction Found Over Out-of-State Defendants Based on Many Individually
Insignificant Contacts
District Court Finds Registering to do Business Sufficient to Support Personal Jurisdiction
Accident That Occurs While Flying Does Not Create Personal Jurisdiction in New York
Don’t Believe the Hype – Part 107 Doesn’t Make Drone Operations Easy for Everyone
Helicopter Lessor Invokes Federal Preemption to Escape Liability for State Law Claims
Court Dismisses State Law Negligence Claim
Against Carrier as Preempted by Montreal
Convenon
Stephen J. Shapiro, Philadelphia
sshapiro@schnader.com
In a case ligated by Schnader Harrison Segal &
Lewis LLP, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently dismissed a
state law negligence claim as preempted by the
Montreal Convenon. In Raub v. US Airways, Inc.,
No. 16-1975 (E.D. Pa.), the plain traveled from
Cancun, Mexico to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania aboard
a ight that encountered severe turbulence.
The plain alleged that her seatbelt failed to
restrain her and that, as a result, she was thrown
upward o ut o f her seat and struck her head on the
overhead compartment.
The plain’s complaint against U.S. Airways
asserted a state law negligence claim against U.S.
Airways, which moved to dismiss the claim as
preempted by the Montreal Convenon. In her
opposion to the moon, the plain conceded that
the Montreal Convenon governed her suit, but
nevertheless argued that the Montreal Convenon
does not preempt state law and, therefore, she
should be permied to pursue her negligence claim
against the airline.
Plain rst relied on cases nding that the
Montreal Convenon does not completely preempt
state law claims so as to support removal. Because
removal was not at issue, however, these cases were
deemed by the court to be irrelevant.
Plain also relied on Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines
Co., 516 U.S. 217 (1996), and its progeny, which held
that “auxiliary issues” not addressed by the
Warsaw/Montreal Convenon are governed by
domesc law. Because the issue of what causes of
acon are permied in a Convenon case is not an
auxiliary issue, however, Zicherman also was
deemed inapplicable.
The Raub Court granted the airline’s moon and
dismissed plain’s state law negligence case.
Raub v. US Airways, Inc., No. 16-1975 (E.D. Pa.)
