Doe v. Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C.
870 F.3d 406
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jane Doe was pricked by a hypodermic needle hidden in an airplane seatback pocket during an Etihad Airways flight from Abu Dhabi to Chicago; the needle drew blood.
- Etihad conceded an onboard "accident" caused a bodily injury (the needlestick) but provided only minimal first aid and later offered a goodwill reimbursement for medical expenses.
- Doe sued under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention claiming physical injury and substantial mental anguish (fear of contagion, emotional distress); her husband claimed loss of consortium.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment to Etihad, barring recovery for Doe’s mental-anguish claims (and dismissing the husband’s derivative claim), reasoning Article 17(1) permits recovery only for emotional harms that are caused by the bodily injury itself.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit reversed: it held the plain text of Article 17(1) allows recovery for "damage sustained" (including emotional/mental harms) when an accident on board causes bodily injury, regardless of whether the emotional harms were caused directly by the physical wound or more generally by the accident.
- The Sixth Circuit also held Michigan choice-of-law rules govern the measure of damages (including loss of consortium), not a uniform federal rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention permits recovery for mental-anguish damages that accompany a compensable bodily injury | Doe: Article 17(1)’s phrase "damage sustained in case of... bodily injury" includes emotional/mental harms sustained in the event of a compensable bodily injury, regardless of whether those harms flow directly from the physical wound | Etihad: "in case of" means "caused by"; emotional harms are recoverable only if they are caused by the bodily injury itself, not merely by the accident or instrumentality (e.g., a needle) | Reversed district court: "in case of" is conditional, not causal; Article 17(1) covers emotional/mental harms traceable to the same accident that caused bodily injury, even if not directly caused by the physical wound |
| Whether Ehrlich (2d Cir.) interpretation of the Warsaw Convention should control interpretation of the Montreal Convention | Doe: Montreal is a distinct, modern treaty whose text governs; Warsaw-era purposivist limits should not be interpolated | Etihad: Adopt Ehrlich’s reading that limits recoverable emotional harms to those caused by physical injury | Held: Declined to adopt Ehrlich; Montreal’s text and purpose differ from Warsaw and do not support importing a stricter causal requirement |
| Whether the Montreal Convention fixes the measure of damages or leaves that to domestic law (choice-of-law question) | Doe: Domestic (state) law should govern measure of damages | Etihad: Various arguments but court treated as contested | Held: Zicherman precedent applies; domestic choice-of-law governs. Michigan law applies to measure of damages and loss-of-consortium claims |
| Whether disputes about reasonableness/speculativeness of claimed fear of contagion are for summary judgment or for trial | Doe: Her documented testing, treatment, and year-long precautions create factual issues | Etihad: Fear of contagion is speculative absent exposure | Held: Reasonableness/speculativeness are factual and damages questions for trial; summary judgment on mental-anguish was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985) (defines "accident" under Article 17 as an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger)
- Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530 (1991) (mental injuries standing alone are not recoverable under Article 17; left open whether mental injuries accompanying physical injury are recoverable)
- Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) (Convention governs liability rules but measure of damages is determined by domestic law/choice-of-law)
- El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155 (1999) (Warsaw Convention provides exclusive remedy for covered international air carriage claims)
- Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644 (2004) (an "accident" may be a chain of events; identifies scope of accident inquiry)
- Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2004) (Second Circuit held emotional injuries are recoverable only if caused by physical injury — discussed and declined as controlling for Montreal Convention)
- In re Air Crash at Lexington, Ky., 501 F. Supp. 2d 902 (E.D. Ky. 2007) (uses Warsaw/Montreal jurisprudence as guide for interpreting Montreal Convention)