Ginsberg v. American Airlines (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2010). The plaintiff was a passenger on an American flight from New York (JFK) to Turks and Caicos. After visiting the restroom during the flight, the plaintiff moved a food cart out of his way so he could return to his seat. However, a flight attendant had instructed him to wait for her to move the cart. The plaintiff and the flight attendant had a confrontation about the cart that involved some physical contact but no injury to the plaintiff.
Upon arrival in Turks and Caicos, the local police boarded the aircraft and asked the plaintiff to accompany them. The police questioned the plaintiff at their headquarters and then drove him to his hotel. American refused to transport the plaintiff on the return flight, so he purchased a substitute ticket on a US Airways flight.
The plaintiff sued American in state court, alleging causes of action for assault and battery, false arrest, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (related to the return flight) and breach of contract (also related to the return flight). The plaintiff sought actual damages of over $325,000 and punitive damages of $1 million. American removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, contending that all of the plaintiff’s tort claims were preempted by the Montreal Convention and offering to refund him the value of the return portion of his ticket in satisfaction of his breach of contract claim.
The court held that the plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery, false arrest and intentional infliction of emotional distress, to the extent they were based on the in-flight events, were preempted by the Montreal Convention. The court also held that, for the in-flight events, the plaintiff had no claim under Article 17(1) of the Convention, which provides that an airline “is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” The court reasoned that the plaintiff had no claim under Article 17(1) because no “accident” had occurred, as the plaintiff himself was the proximate cause of his confrontation with the flight attendant, and because the plaintiff had not suffered any “bodily injury” as a result of such confrontation.
The court then held that the plaintiff’s false arrest claim, to the extent it was based on the alleged conduct by American personnel at the police headquarters, was not preempted by the Montreal Convention but that it failed nonetheless because the plaintiff had not proffered any evidence of false statements made by such personnel to the police.
Next, the court held that the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed. The court concluded that this claim, which was based on American’s refusal to transport the plaintiff on the return flight, was deficient because the plaintiff had failed to proffer evidence that American had engaged in “the requisite outrageous and extreme conduct” or that he had suffered “the requisite severe emotional distress.”
Finally, the court held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was not preempted by the Montreal Convention, but it noted that American had offered to refund the value of the return portion of the plaintiff’s ticket. The court indicated that American would also be liable to the plaintiff for the “additional cost factor” associated with the substitute US Airways ticket.
Update: On October 25, 2010, the plaintiff appealed the court’s decision to the Second Circuit.