Phifer v. ICELANDAIR
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15362
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Phifer boarded Icelandair Flight 656, struck her head on a downed overhead monitor during boarding, and collapsed.
- Phifer sued Icelandair under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention for injuries sustained in boarding, on, or disembarking.
- The district court granted summary judgment, concluding Phifer showed no FAA violation and thus no Article 17 accident.
- The district court treated FAA noncompliance as dispositive of liability under Article 17.
- The appellate court held FAA violations are not a prerequisite to Article 17 liability and remanded for proper accident analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the monitor being down during boarding was an accident | Phifer argues the downed monitor caused an accident. | Icelandair argues no accident since the monitor being down was not unforeseen/unusual. | Not an accident under Article 17; remand for proper analysis. |
| Whether FAA violations are required for Article 17 liability | Plaintiff contends FAA standards need not be violated to sustain liability. | Defendant asserts FAA compliance is necessary to prove an accident. | FAA violation not prerequisite to Article 17 liability. |
| What standard governs whether an Article 17 accident occurred | Focus on whether the event was the cause of injury as an accident. | Court should consider all circumstances, not solely regulatory violations. | Court should apply de novo review to whether an accident occurred under Article 17. |
Key Cases Cited
- Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court, 1985) (defines accident as an unexpected or unusual external event; flexibly applied)
- Husain v. Olympic Airways, 540 U.S. 644 (Supreme Court, 2004) (identifies focus on the accident causing injury; reviews legal question de novo)
- Prescod v. AMR, Inc., 383 F.3d 861 (9th Cir., 2004) (Article 17 liability without FAA violation evidence)
- Rodriguez v. Ansett Australia Ltd., 383 F.3d 914 (9th Cir., 2004) (notes absence of industry-standard violation evidence is not fatal)
- Caman v. Continental Airlines, 455 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir., 2006) (discusses element of an event and its relation to accident)