Home/S.D. New York/Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane

Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane

253 F. Supp. 237, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8076
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 1, 1966
Docket60 Civ. 4365, 61 Civ. 3426, 63 Civ. 1734-1736
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 253 F. Supp. 237 (Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, 253 F. Supp. 237, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8076 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

Opinion

MacMAHON, District Judge.

These are consolidated actions for death, personal injuries or property damage suffered by passengers in a crash of defendant’s airplane on February 26, 1960, in Shannon, Ireland, while en route from Rome to New York. Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of New York, and defendant is an Italian corporation. Jurisdiction is based on diversity.

Plaintiffs move for partial' summary judgment dismissing all affirmative defenses which are based on the exclusion or limitation of liability provisions (Articles 20 and 22) of the Warsaw Convention, 1 49 Stat. 3000 (.1934). All of the evidentiary facts material to the motion appear on the face of the tickets issued to the passengers on the flight involved, and there is no dispute about them. 2 Plaintiffs claim that these exculpatory defenses are not available to an airline unless the airline delivers a passenger ticket and, where applicable, a baggage check, which notify the passenger that the exclusion or limitation of liability provisions of the Warsaw Convention are applicable to the flight, and that the tickets and checks delivered here did not notify the passengers of such provisions. Defendant claims that if a ticket and check are delivered to a passenger before departure, such defenses are automatically applicable to ffights between nations adhering to the Convention even though the ticket and check do not notify the passenger of such provisions, and that, in any event, *239 the tickets and checks delivered here so notified the passengers.

The Warsaw Convention specifies that the provisions of the Convention which exclude or limit an airline’s liability are unavailable unless the airline delivers a passenger ticket and baggage check. 3 The Convention also requires that the ticket and check contain “[a] statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.” 4 Read together, the intent of these requirements is to afford the passenger a reasonable opportunity to take measures to protect himself against the airline’s exclusion or limitation of its liability. Indeed, the Convention specifically provides that “the carrier and the passenger may agree on a higher limit of liability.” 5 Manifestly, if the ticket and check delivered by the airline- fail to notify the passenger that the exclusion or limitation provisions of the Convention are applicable, the passenger is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to protect himself by deciding not to take the flight, entering into a special contract with the carrier, or taking out additional insurance.

We bold, therefore, that compliance with the Convention requires not mere physical delivery of a ticket and check before departure but delivery of a ticket and check which notify the passenger that the provisions of the Convention which exclude or limit liability are applicable. 6 Cf. Mertens v. Frying Tiger Line, Inc., 341 F.2d 851 (2d Cir.),. cert. denied, 382 U.S. 816, 86 S.Ct. 38, 15 L.Ed.2d 64 (1965); Warren v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 352 F.2d 494 (9th Cir. 1965.); Block v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, 229 F.Supp. 801, 808 (N.D. Ga.1964); Sand, Air Carriers’ Limitation of Liability and Air Passengers’ Accident Compensation under the Warsaw Convention, 28 J. Air L. & Com. 260, 262-263 (1962). Thus-, if the tickets and checks issued here did not so notify the passenger, the challenged affirmative defenses are unavailable and must be dismissed.

We are of the opinion that a jury could not reasonably find that the passenger tickets and baggage checks delivered here notified the passengers that the exclusion or limitation provisions of the Convention were applicable and, accordingly, hold as a matter of law that defendant *240 cannot exclude or limit its liability under the Convention in the case at bar. We think one look at the tickets and checks, which were combined in the form of small printed booklets, compels this conclusion. We set forth below replicas of the only applicable pages of typical tickets delivered here:

Outside Front Cover

*241 CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT Page 4 of the Booklet

*242

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

Related

Castle v. Barrett-Jackson Auction Co., LLC
276 P.3d 540 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2012)
Vavoules v. Kloster Cruise Ltd.
822 F. Supp. 979 (E.D. New York, 1993)
American Samoa Government ex rel. Uikirifi v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
10 Am. Samoa 2d 31 (High Court of American Samoa, 1989)
Marek, Harriet and Marek, Samuel Husband and Wife v. Marpan Two, Inc. And Bahama Cruise Line, Inc
817 F.2d 242 (Third Circuit, 1987)
In Re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983
664 F. Supp. 1463 (District of Columbia, 1985)
Kupferman v. Pakistan International Airlines
108 Misc. 2d 485 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1981)
Causey v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
462 F. Supp. 1114 (C.D. California, 1978)
In Re Air Crash in Bali, Indonesia
462 F. Supp. 1114 (C.D. California, 1978)
DeMarines v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
433 F. Supp. 1047 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1977)
Deutsche Lufthansa Aktienge-Sellschaft v. Civil Aeronautics Board
479 F.2d 912 (D.C. Circuit, 1973)
Robert v. Pan American World Airways
71 Misc. 2d 991 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)
Owens v. Italia Societa Per Azione Navigazione-Genova
70 Misc. 2d 719 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1972)
Sofranski v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
68 Misc. 2d 402 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1971)
Bixler v. Iberia, Líneas Aereas de España
327 F. Supp. 934 (D. Puerto Rico, 1971)
Fairchild Hiller Corp. v. Commuter Airlines, Inc.
66 Misc. 2d 708 (New York Supreme Court, 1971)
Stolk v. Compagnie Nationals Air France
58 Misc. 2d 1008 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1969)
Egan v. Kollsman Instrument Corp.
234 N.E.2d 199 (New York Court of Appeals, 1967)
John Lisi, Etc. v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A.
370 F.2d 508 (Second Circuit, 1966)
Berguido v. Eastern Air Lines, Incorporated.
369 F.2d 874 (Third Circuit, 1966)
Berguido v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
369 F.2d 874 (Third Circuit, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 F. Supp. 237, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lisi-v-alitalia-linee-aeree-italiane-nysd-1966.