Allan Campbell v. Air Jamaica LTD
760 F.3d 1165
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Campbell’s Kingston–Fort Lauderdale flight was delayed; he was recalled to the gate, forced to rebook for the next day, and charged a $150 change fee.
- Air Jamaica refused hotel accommodations, leaving him stranded outside in adverse weather due to terminal repairs.
- Campbell alleges delay-related damages and injuries (including a heart attack) tied to Air Jamaica’s actions; he raises Montreal Convention claims under Arts. 17 and 19.
- Caribbean Airlines is named but not alleged to have taken any cognizable action; claims against it are dismissed.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a Montreal Convention claim, prompting appellate review.
- The court ultimately vacates the dismissal of the Article 19 claim for the $150 fee and remands on that issue; affirms on other grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Montreal Convention grants district court jurisdiction. | Campbell argues the district court has jurisdiction under Article 33. | Air Jamaica/Caribbean Airlines contend limited or no Montreal claims; jurisdiction not disputed. | Yes, the district court has jurisdiction under Article 33. |
| Whether Campbell stated a redressable Article 19 (delay) claim. | Campbell asserts economic damages from the $150 fee and other delay-related harms. | Air Jamaica contends no recoverable damages beyond trivial or non-economic losses. | Article 19 permits economic damages; the $150 fee claim survives; other delay damages not established. |
| Whether Campbell stated an Article 17 (accident) claim. | Campbell contends an accident occurred during boarding/embarking. | Bumping/offsetting are not accidents under Article 17. | No Article 17 claim; bumping and related events do not constitute an Article 17 accident. |
| Whether Campbell’s claims against Caribbean Airlines survive. | Caribbean Airlines should be liable as associated carrier. | Caribbean Airlines did not participate in the alleged conduct. | Claims against Caribbean Airlines are dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether amended pleadings relate back under Rule 15(c) to timely original filing. | Amendment aligns with original conduct; relates back. | Unclear application under Montreal Convention. | Rule 15(c) relation back permitted; amended complaint timely under Article 35. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1946) (jurisdictional dismissal standards and state-of-the-claim analysis)
- Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1985) (definition of 'accident' and embarkation/disembarkation connection)
- Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997) (explication of 'accident' and embarking considerations)
- Marotte v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 296 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2002) (totality of circumstances to determine 'embarking' scope)
- Day v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 528 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1975) (embarking/disembarking control and imminence factors)
- Pennington v. British Airways, 275 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (relation-back under Rule 15(c) in Montreal Convention context)
- Fishman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 132 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1998) (treatment of tolling vs. relation back under Montreal Convention)