Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

Eleventh Circuit

Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

937 F.2d 1555, 1991 WL 135482

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 1991

DocketNo. 86-5381

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 937 F.2d 1555 (Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 937 F.2d 1555, 1991 WL 135482 (11th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[1556]*1556ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before ANDERSON and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS *, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case, Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1489, 113 L.Ed.2d 569 (1991), the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is due to be affirmed in all respects except one.

In Part VII of our original opinion, Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 872 F.2d 1462, 1489-90 (11th Cir.1989), we reversed the district court’s failure to grant four plaintiffs (in the Dix and Khoury complaints) leave to amend their complaints to allege physical injury resulting from the accident. The Supreme Court left open the question of “whether passengers can recover for mental injuries that are accompanied by physical injuries” under the Warsaw Convention because the plaintiffs did not allege such injuries. Floyd, — U.S. at-, 111 S.Ct. at 1502. We also express no view on this issue, leaving it to the district court in the first instance if the four plaintiffs can amend their complaints appropriately.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in all respects, except that the district court’s denial of leave to amend the Dix and Khoury complaints is reversed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1556]*1556ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before ANDERSON and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS *, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case, Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1489, 113 L.Ed.2d 569 (1991), the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is due to be affirmed in all respects except one.

In Part VII of our original opinion, Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 872 F.2d 1462, 1489-90 (11th Cir.1989), we reversed the district court’s failure to grant four plaintiffs (in the Dix and Khoury complaints) leave to amend their complaints to allege physical injury resulting from the accident. The Supreme Court left open the question of “whether passengers can recover for mental injuries that are accompanied by physical injuries” under the Warsaw Convention because the plaintiffs did not allege such injuries. Floyd, — U.S. at-, 111 S.Ct. at 1502. We also express no view on this issue, leaving it to the district court in the first instance if the four plaintiffs can amend their complaints appropriately.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in all respects, except that the district court’s denial of leave to amend the Dix and Khoury complaints is reversed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

937 F.2d 1555, 1991 WL 135482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-eastern-airlines-inc-ca11-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack