Spinrad v. Comair, Inc.
825 F. Supp. 2d 397
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Spinrad, a passenger, fell while disembarking via integrally built air stairs after plane landed unexpectedly in Norfolk, Virginia.
- Comair failed to have staff at bottom of stairs to assist, though a Delta ramp agent was nearby but not aiding exiting passengers.
- Plaintiff and husband needed assistance due to age and cane; airline had knowledge of their needs but did not provide help.
- Accident occurred after flight diverted; passengers exited via aircraft stairs instead of jetways.
- Plaintiff sued in New York state court for negligence; case removed to federal court; Comair seeks summary judgment on preemption grounds.
- Court must determine whether FAA and ADA preempt Virginia common-law negligence claim and whether summary judgment is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAA preemption of state-law negligence claim | Spinrad argues FAA does not preempt because claim relates to post-landing conduct. | Comair contends FAA field preempts state-law negligence claims in aviation-safety. | FAA preemption does not bar this state-law negligence claim. |
| ADA express preemption of the claim | Spinrad contends ADA preemption applies to prices/routes/services only. | Comair argues ADA preemption may apply to claims affecting prices/routes/services. | ADA express preemption does not bar Spinrad's claim. |
| Choice of law governing negligence standard | Virginia law applies due to accident location and conduct. | New York law applies; Virginia if not preempted. | Virginia law applies; NY law only if not preempted and applicable. |
| Summary judgment on negligence claim | Genuine issues exist as to causation and duty. | No triable issue on proximate cause. | Summary judgment denied; a reasonable jury could find proximate cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Air Transport Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2008) (ADA service meaning and preemption discussion; state law relating to service may be preempted)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (Supreme Court 1992) (ADA preemption scope via ‘related to’ test; broad preemption with limits)
- Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court 2008) (limits on preemption under ADA through ‘tenuous, remote, or peripheral’ effects)
- Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 128 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997) (tests for whether a state-law claim relates to airline service)
- Goodspeed Airport LLC v. East Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm’n, 634 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2011) (FAA field preemption not absolute; limited in non-air-safety contexts)
- GoodSpeed Airport LLC v. East Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm’n, 634 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2011) (field preemption analysis; FAA occupies air-safety field but not all related state claims)