Case Law Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc.

Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (40) Cited in (208) Related (4)

Frank H. Granito, Jr., New York City (Jeanne M. O'Grady, Speiser, Krause, Nolan & Granito, New York City, of counsel), for Appellants.

David S. Rutherford, New York City (Lewis R. Silverman, Sarah A. Hine, Rutherford & Christie, New York City, of counsel), for Appellees.

Robert M. Loeb, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Colette G. Matzzie, Attorney, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, of counsel), for The United States as Amicus Curiae.

Before: MESKILL, MINER and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

MESKILL, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants Gary and Maryanne Ehrlich (the Ehrlichs) experienced an ordeal that few airline passengers have the misfortune to endure. While traveling from Baltimore, Maryland to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) to catch a connecting flight to London, the Ehrlichs' plane suffered an abnormal landing. On approaching JFK, their aircraft overshot the runway and was abruptly stopped by an arrestor bed before the plane would otherwise have plunged into the waters of nearby Thurston Bay.1

According to the Ehrlichs, both appellants sustained physical and mental injuries during the course of that incident. They subsequently commenced an action to recover damages for those injuries pursuant to the international treaty commonly known as the Warsaw Convention. See Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, 3014, T.S. No. 876 (entered into force in the United States in 1934) (Warsaw Convention), reprinted in 49 U.S.C. § 40105 note.

Defendants-appellees American Airlines, Inc. (American Airlines), American Eagle Airlines, Inc. (American Eagle), and Simmons Airlines, Inc. (Simmons Airlines) (collectively the airline defendants) moved for partial summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Amon, J., granted their motion on the ground that they could not be held liable under the Warsaw Convention for mental injuries that were not caused by physical injuries. See Ehrlich v. American Airlines, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21419, at *10-*11 (E.D.N.Y. June 21, 2002).

This appeal asks us to resolve whether passengers can hold carriers liable in accordance with the Warsaw Convention for mental injuries that accompany, but are not caused by, bodily injuries. For the reasons that follow, we hold that they may not and affirm the district court's grant of partial summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

On May 8, 1999, Gary and Maryanne Ehrlich boarded American Eagle Flight No. 4925 in Baltimore, Maryland. They intended to travel to JFK, where they were scheduled to connect to an American Airlines flight to London. When their flight reached JFK, the plane approached the airport at a high rate of speed, overshot its designated runway, and was abruptly stopped from potentially plunging into Thurston Bay by an arrestor bed.2 The passengers subsequently evacuated that aircraft by jumping approximately six to eight feet from its doorway.

The Ehrlichs contend that they suffered bodily injuries during the course of both the abnormal landing and the ensuing evacuation. Gary Ehrlich allegedly sustained knee injuries, while Maryanne Ehrlich purportedly sustained injuries to, inter alia, her neck, back, shoulder, hips, and right knee. Since the abnormal landing, Maryanne Ehrlich has also allegedly developed hypertension and a heart problem.

In addition to these bodily injuries, the Ehrlichs further contend that they sustained mental injuries. According to the evidence presented to the district court, both Gary and Maryanne Ehrlich suffered from a fear of flying after the accident. Moreover, Gary Ehrlich apparently experienced nightmares after which he awoke in the middle of the night recalling the abnormal landing and evacuation. Similarly, Maryanne Ehrlich reports that she periodically has trouble sleeping as a result of the accident.

On September 27, 1999, the Ehrlichs commenced the instant action against American Airlines, American Eagle, and Simmons Airlines in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, pursuant to the Warsaw Convention, in an effort to recover damages for their aforementioned physical and psychological injuries. After deposing the Ehrlichs, the airline defendants moved for partial summary judgment. They asked the district court to dismiss the Ehrlichs' claims for mental injuries on two grounds. First, the airline defendants argued that the Ehrlichs had failed to prove that they had sustained such injuries. Second, the airline defendants contended that, even if the Ehrlichs had suffered those injuries, the damages in question did not flow from their bodily injuries and that carriers were liable under the Warsaw Convention only for psychological injuries that were caused by bodily injuries.

The Ehrlichs vigorously opposed that motion. They argued that they had, in fact, sustained mental injuries. They also took the position that carriers could be held liable under the Warsaw Convention as long as a mental injury accompanied a physical injury, regardless of whether the two distinct types of injuries shared a causal relationship. Finally, although they never filed a formal cross-motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the matter, the Ehrlichs asked the court to grant them partial summary judgment on the issue of carrier liability. In essence, the Ehrlichs argued that, under the International Air Transport Association Intercarrier Agreement on Passenger Liability (Intercarrier Agreement),3 the airline defendants were strictly liable for damages up to the equivalent of $140,000 and that the airlines bore the burden of proving that they had taken all necessary measures to avoid damages sustained in excess of that sum.

The district court heard oral argument on May 31, 2001, at which time the court granted the Ehrlichs' so-called "cross-motion" for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under the Intercarrier Agreement. Ehrlich, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21419, at *3. However, the court initially reserved decision on the airline defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. In June 2002, after further considering the issue, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the airline defendants. See id. at *1.

On reviewing the applicable case law, the court determined that, "[u]nder the Warsaw Convention, a plaintiff may only recover for emotional damages caused by physical injuries." Id. at *10. This proved to be a critical conclusion, as the court found that the Ehrlichs had offered no evidence demonstrating a causal connection between their mental and physical injuries. Id. at *10-*11. Because the district court concluded that the Ehrlichs had "not raised a genuine issue of fact regarding a causal connection between their alleged bodily injuries and their mental suffering," the court granted the airline defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the Ehrlichs could "not recover for their emotional trauma resulting solely from the aberrant landing and evacuation." Id. at *11.

Shortly thereafter, the Ehrlichs sought to certify the issue for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court denied their motion and set a trial date for the remaining Warsaw Convention issues pertaining to liability for bodily injuries. However, the parties managed to resolve those issues before trial. On October 31, 2002, the Ehrlichs stipulated to the discontinuance of their action with prejudice against American Airlines and Simmons Airlines. At the same time, American Eagle filed an Offer of Judgment in which it presented the Ehrlichs with the opportunity to take a judgment in the amount of $100,000 against that airline. Several days later, the Ehrlichs accepted American Eagle's offer on the condition that their acceptance was "without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal from" the order of partial summary judgment.

The district court issued a Judgment that conformed to both American Eagle's offer and the Ehrlichs' conditional acceptance thereof. The court entered a judgment in the amount of $100,000 against American Eagle in complete satisfaction of the Ehrlichs' claims for bodily injury. The court also entered a judgment in favor of the airline defendants pursuant to its earlier order granting their motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the Ehrlichs' claims for mental injuries; the judgment entered by the district court was expressly without prejudice to the Ehrlichs' right to appeal from that partial summary judgment decision. This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review

We review de novo the district court's grant of a motion for partial summary judgment, Juliano v. Health Maintenance Org. of New Jersey, 221 F.3d 279, 286 (2d Cir.2000), but we only undertake to do so when, as here, a final decision has rendered the case appealable. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Carpenter, 313 F.3d 97, 102 (2d Cir.2002). Similarly, "[t]he proper interpretation of the Warsaw Convention is an issue of law, which we review de novo." Wallace v. Korean Air, 214 F.3d 293, 296 (2d Cir.2000).

II. The Warsaw Convention System

The Ehrlichs seek to hold American Eagle liable for their mental injuries pursuant to the Warsaw Convention. As we exhaustively explained more than a decade ago,

[t]he Warsaw Convention was drafted when the airline industry was in its infancy. It was the product of two international conferences — the first held in Paris...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida – 2007
In re West Caribbean Airways, S.A.
"...new treaty that unifies and replaces the system of liability that derives from the Warsaw Convention. . . . Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n. 4 (2d Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted).22 Thus, Hosaka's reliance on the purposes of the Warsaw to conclude that forum non co..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2004
O Centro Espirita Beneficiente v. Ashcroft
"...in several respects. First and foremost, the interpretation of the Convention is a question of law. See, e.g., Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 370 (2d Cir.2004) (holding that proper interpretation of an international treaty is a question of law subject to de novo review); Unite..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida – 2008
Ugaz v. American Airlines, Inc.
"...treaty `unifies and replaces the system of liability that derives from the Warsaw Convention ....'") (quoting Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n. 4 (2d Cir.2004)). The Montreal Convention governs international travel and limits liability for carriers such as American Airline..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2011
In re 650 Fifth Ave. And Related Properties.
"...be interpreted to effectuate its evident purposes.” Reed v. Wiser, 555 F.2d 1079, 1088 (2d Cir.1977); see also Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 385 (2d Cir.2004) (“Where, as here, the literal meaning of a treaty is ambiguous, we may look to the purposes of the treaty to aid our ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2012
Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P.
"...a uniform system of liability for international air carriers. See generally Montreal Convention; see also Ehrlich v. American Airlines, 360 F.3d 366, 370–71 (2d Cir.2004). It applies to “all international carriage of persons, baggage, or cargo performed by aircraft for reward.” Montreal Con..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
4 books and journal articles
Document | Travel Law
Chapter § 2A.01 OVERVIEW OF THE WARSAW AND MONTREAL CONVENTIONS
"...was an accident which caused passenger's death and constituted willful misconduct).[63] See, e.g., Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004) (passengers suffer injuries when "their aircraft overshot the runway and was abruptly stopped by an arrestor bed before the plan..."
Document | Travel Law
Chapter § 2A.04 AIR CARRIER LIABILITY
"...on suspicion of a fraudulent passport or being told to retrieve his luggage from the tarmac"); Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004) (passengers suffer injuries when "their aircraft overshot the runway and was abruptly stopped by an arrestor bed before the plane wo..."
Document | Vol. 41 Núm. 4, October 2008 – 2008
The Montreal Convention: can passengers finally recover for mental injuries?
"...Manifestations of Emotional and Mental Distress?, 67 J. AIR L. & COM. 1345, 1369-70 (2002). (49.) See Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n.4 (2d Cir. 2004) ("The Montreal Convention is the product of an effort by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a specialized..."
Document | Vol. 77 Núm. 4, October 2010 – 2010
Recent developments under the Montreal Convention.
"...[section] 40105; Best v. BWIA West Indies Airways, Ltd., 581 F. Supp.2d. 359, 368 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n. 4 (2d Cir. (3) Montreal Convention, Preamble; see In re Air Crash at Lexington, Kentucky, August 27, 2006, 501 F. Supp.2d 902, 907 (E..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
4 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Rehearing Sought of Sixth Circuit’s Montreal Convention Holding on Recoverability of Mental Injuries
"...consistently with the extensive body of WC precedent that had developed over the years. S. Exec. R. 1-8-8, at 3 (2003). Judith Nemsick Ehrlich and the Eighth Circuit in In re Air Crash at Little Rock, Ark., on June 1, 1999 (Lloyd)4 recognize that to allow a physical injury, "no matter how m..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Petition for Rehearing Denied in Doe v. Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C.
"...Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 267 (2015); Bassam v. Am. Airlines, 287 Fed. Appx. 309 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004); In re Air Crash at Little Rock, Ark., on June 1, 1999, 291 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. Judith Nemsick function JDS_LoadEvent(fu..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Aviations Happenings - Fall 2017
"...noted was the position taken with regard to the Warsaw Convention by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 368 (2d Cir. 2004), by a number of other U.S. courts and at least one foreign court. The Sixth Circuit rejected this authority, seemingly ..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Illinois Federal Court First To Follow Sixth Circuit's Opinion In Doe v. Etihad, Holding That Emotional Injuries Need Only Be Accompanied By Bodily Injury
"...the purpose of not disrupting existing jurisprudence. In rejecting this argument, the court looked at Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004), one of the most frequently cited on this issue. In Ehrlich, the Second Circuit deemed the language of Article 17 ambiguous o..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 books and journal articles
Document | Travel Law
Chapter § 2A.01 OVERVIEW OF THE WARSAW AND MONTREAL CONVENTIONS
"...was an accident which caused passenger's death and constituted willful misconduct).[63] See, e.g., Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004) (passengers suffer injuries when "their aircraft overshot the runway and was abruptly stopped by an arrestor bed before the plan..."
Document | Travel Law
Chapter § 2A.04 AIR CARRIER LIABILITY
"...on suspicion of a fraudulent passport or being told to retrieve his luggage from the tarmac"); Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004) (passengers suffer injuries when "their aircraft overshot the runway and was abruptly stopped by an arrestor bed before the plane wo..."
Document | Vol. 41 Núm. 4, October 2008 – 2008
The Montreal Convention: can passengers finally recover for mental injuries?
"...Manifestations of Emotional and Mental Distress?, 67 J. AIR L. & COM. 1345, 1369-70 (2002). (49.) See Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n.4 (2d Cir. 2004) ("The Montreal Convention is the product of an effort by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a specialized..."
Document | Vol. 77 Núm. 4, October 2010 – 2010
Recent developments under the Montreal Convention.
"...[section] 40105; Best v. BWIA West Indies Airways, Ltd., 581 F. Supp.2d. 359, 368 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n. 4 (2d Cir. (3) Montreal Convention, Preamble; see In re Air Crash at Lexington, Kentucky, August 27, 2006, 501 F. Supp.2d 902, 907 (E..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida – 2007
In re West Caribbean Airways, S.A.
"...new treaty that unifies and replaces the system of liability that derives from the Warsaw Convention. . . . Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n. 4 (2d Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted).22 Thus, Hosaka's reliance on the purposes of the Warsaw to conclude that forum non co..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2004
O Centro Espirita Beneficiente v. Ashcroft
"...in several respects. First and foremost, the interpretation of the Convention is a question of law. See, e.g., Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 370 (2d Cir.2004) (holding that proper interpretation of an international treaty is a question of law subject to de novo review); Unite..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida – 2008
Ugaz v. American Airlines, Inc.
"...treaty `unifies and replaces the system of liability that derives from the Warsaw Convention ....'") (quoting Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n. 4 (2d Cir.2004)). The Montreal Convention governs international travel and limits liability for carriers such as American Airline..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2011
In re 650 Fifth Ave. And Related Properties.
"...be interpreted to effectuate its evident purposes.” Reed v. Wiser, 555 F.2d 1079, 1088 (2d Cir.1977); see also Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 385 (2d Cir.2004) (“Where, as here, the literal meaning of a treaty is ambiguous, we may look to the purposes of the treaty to aid our ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2012
Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P.
"...a uniform system of liability for international air carriers. See generally Montreal Convention; see also Ehrlich v. American Airlines, 360 F.3d 366, 370–71 (2d Cir.2004). It applies to “all international carriage of persons, baggage, or cargo performed by aircraft for reward.” Montreal Con..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Rehearing Sought of Sixth Circuit’s Montreal Convention Holding on Recoverability of Mental Injuries
"...consistently with the extensive body of WC precedent that had developed over the years. S. Exec. R. 1-8-8, at 3 (2003). Judith Nemsick Ehrlich and the Eighth Circuit in In re Air Crash at Little Rock, Ark., on June 1, 1999 (Lloyd)4 recognize that to allow a physical injury, "no matter how m..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Petition for Rehearing Denied in Doe v. Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C.
"...Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 267 (2015); Bassam v. Am. Airlines, 287 Fed. Appx. 309 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004); In re Air Crash at Little Rock, Ark., on June 1, 1999, 291 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. Judith Nemsick function JDS_LoadEvent(fu..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Aviations Happenings - Fall 2017
"...noted was the position taken with regard to the Warsaw Convention by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 368 (2d Cir. 2004), by a number of other U.S. courts and at least one foreign court. The Sixth Circuit rejected this authority, seemingly ..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Illinois Federal Court First To Follow Sixth Circuit's Opinion In Doe v. Etihad, Holding That Emotional Injuries Need Only Be Accompanied By Bodily Injury
"...the purpose of not disrupting existing jurisprudence. In rejecting this argument, the court looked at Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004), one of the most frequently cited on this issue. In Ehrlich, the Second Circuit deemed the language of Article 17 ambiguous o..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial