45 F.4th 1181
10th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Kelly Day, a fare-paying passenger, alleges a SkyWest flight attendant forcefully struck her right shoulder with a beverage cart during in-flight beverage service, causing personal injury.
- Day filed a diversity two-count complaint (negligence and breach of contract) in the District of Utah, treated under Utah common law.
- SkyWest moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing ADA express preemption of both claims; the district court granted dismissal on preemption grounds.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered whether the Airline Deregulation Act (49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1)) preempts state common-law personal-injury and contract claims arising from airline employees’ negligent conduct.
- The panel reversed the district court: it held Day’s negligence and breach-of-contract claims are not expressly preempted by the ADA and remanded for further proceedings, declining to decide SkyWest’s newly raised or underdeveloped alternative arguments on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA express preemption bars Day’s negligence and breach-of-contract claims arising from a beverage-cart collision | Day: personal-injury claims for an employee’s failure to exercise due care are ordinary state tort/contract claims and are not "related to" airline price, route, or service for preemption purposes | SkyWest: beverage service is an airline "service," so claims arising from it are "related to" service and thus preempted by the ADA | The court held the claims are not expressly preempted: Utah common-law duties are laws of general applicability and lack the requisite connection with or reference to airline prices, routes, or services; reversal and remand. |
| Whether the Federal Aviation Act impliedly field-preempts Day’s claims (alternative defense) | Day: not squarely addressed on appeal; claims should proceed | SkyWest: argues implied field preemption under FAA as alternative ground to affirm | Court declined to consider this newly raised, inadequately briefed, and complex issue on appeal; remanded for district court to address if raised there. |
| Whether Day’s breach-of-contract claim fails for inadequate pleading (no specific contract identified) | Day: contract claim plausibly alleges implied duties (safe carriage, exercise of care) | SkyWest: complaint fails to identify a specific contract or provision and is duplicative of negligence | Court declined to resolve on appeal due to sparse briefing and lack of district-court analysis; left for district court on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (adopts the "connection with or reference to" test for ADA preemption)
- Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 577 U.S. 312 (2016) (preemption where law acts immediately and exclusively on or depends on existence of federal plans)
- Dillingham Constr., N.A., Inc. v. California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement, 519 U.S. 316 (1997) (consider federal statute objectives and nature of state-law effect when assessing preemption)
- Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (2014) (state common-law rules fall within ADA preemption language but may survive depending on relation to prices/routes/services)
- American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (contract claims are generally not preempted by the ADA)
- Hodges v. Delta Airlines, 44 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 1995) ("service" includes provision of food and drink)
- Charas v. Trans World Airlines, 160 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (Congress did not intend ADA to displace state tort remedies for personal injuries)
- Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, 164 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 1998) (distinguishes economic regulation from ordinary tort claims)
- Branche v. Airtran Airways, 342 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) (personal-injury claims generally outside ADA preemption because airlines do not compete on personal-injury risk)