847 F. Supp. 2d 266
D. Mass.2012Background
- Plaintiff Colin Bower sues EgyptAir for interference with custodial relations, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of filial consortium after his ex-wife abducted their two children to Cairo in 2009.
- Custody was awarded to Bower and the divorce decree prohibited El-Nady from taking the children out of Massachusetts.
- El-Nady purchased three one-way tickets to Cairo on EgyptAir and traveled with the children, paying cash and presenting Egyptian passports for all.
- Bower alleges EgyptAir knew or should have known of the custodial dispute and failed to prevent the travel, thereby facilitating the abduction.
- The case was removed to federal court, and later the court resolved subject-mmatter jurisdiction as diversity and proceeded to address summary judgment.
- The court ultimately granted EgyptAir’s motion for summary judgment, finding no duty on the airline to investigate the mother’s travel in violation of a custody order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ADA preempts the claims | Bower argues ADA preemption applies to state tort claims. | EgyptAir contends claims are preempted as related to airline services. | ADA preemption does not apply to these negligence/interference claims. |
| Whether the Warsaw Convention preempts the claims | Bower contends international liability rules preempt local tort claims. | EgyptAir argues Warsaw preempts related claims for injuries connected to the flight. | Warsaw Convention preemption does not bar these non-passenger-injury claims. |
| Whether EgyptAir owed a duty to investigate custodial status | Bower asserts a duty to protect non-passenger children from abduction. | EgyptAir argues no duty to monitor custody status of a passenger taking a flight. | No duty owed to investigate custodial status; no liability for nonfeasance. |
| Whether a special relationship grants duty to N and R | Bower contends a common carrier duty extends to safeguarding minor passengers from abduction. | EgyptAir argues no special relation imposes such duty to non-passenger father. | No special-relations-based duty to protect the children beyond ordinary carrier duties. |
| Whether foreseeability creates a duty to protect | Bower relies on red flags and warnings about international abductions to establish foreseeability. | EgyptAir notes red flags were not sufficient to establish actual knowledge of abduction. | Foreseeability alone does not create a duty; no duty found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 836 F.Supp.2d 33 (D. Mass. 2011) (ADA preemption not broad enough to cover all personal-injury claims)
- Acevedo-Reinoso v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana S.A., 449 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2006) (Warsaw Convention preemption analysis for international carriers)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court 2008) (preemption focus on congressional intent and limits)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (Supreme Court 1992) (ADA preemption scope and purpose in aviation context)
- McCloskey v. Mueller, 446 F.3d 262 (1st Cir. 2006) (duty analysis; no duty to control third parties absent special relation)
- Quigley v. Wilson Line of Mass., Inc., 338 Mass. 125 (1958) (Massachusetts carrier-duty framework; foreseeability considerations)
- Brown v. United States, 514 F.Supp.2d 146 (D. Mass. 2007) (summary judgment standard in negligence cases)