-
219 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (2002) In re AIR CRASH AT TAIPEI, TAIWAN, ON OCTOBER 31, 2000.
No. MDL 1394 GAF(RCx). United States District Court, C.D. California.
August 26, 2002. ORDER GRANTING SINGAPORE AIRLINE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES ISSUE
FEES, District Judge.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendants Singapore Airlines, Ltd. ("SIA") and EVA Airways Corporation's ("EVA") move the Court for Partial Summary Judgment.[1] Defendants contend that the Court should enter summary judgment in their favor on Plaintiffs' punitive damages claims because punitive damages are not recoverable in actions governed by the Warsaw Convention. Plaintiffs counter that the Warsaw Convention establishes a "pass-through" to local damages law, and does not bar any type of damages, including punitive damages. With respect to SIA's motion, the Court concludes that, although local law provides the substantive rule regarding the recovery of compensatory damages in air crash cases (Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217, 116 S. Ct. 629, 133 L. Ed. 2d 596 (1996)), no court that has considered this issue has permitted the recovery of punitive damages in an air crash case governed by the Warsaw Convention. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS SIA's motion for summary adjudication of the punitive damages issue. However, because further discovery must be completed regarding the status of EVA whether it acted as the agent of SIA and therefore entitled to the Warsaw Convention's limitations on liability the Court defers ruling on EVA's motion.
II.
DISCUSSION
The parties concede that most of the cases identified in Defendants' motions are governed exclusively by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention.[2] (See Appendix *1070 A). Moreover, the parties agree that the Warsaw Convention does not specifically provide for the recovery of punitive damages in air crash cases. The parties part ways, however, on the issue of whether punitive damages are barred under the Warsaw Convention. Although this issue has not yet been directly decided by the Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit, "[e]very court that has addressed this issue has held that the liability and remedy contemplated by Article 17 of the Convention is compensatory in nature and not punitive. . . . Therefore, courts uniformly have held that punitive damages are not available in cases of death or personal injury governed by the Warsaw Convention." In re Air Crash Disaster Near Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia on Sept. 2, 1998, 2002 WL 334389, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Feb.27, 2002)(collecting cases). See, e.g., In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 932 F.2d 1475 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994, 112 S. Ct. 616, 116 L. Ed. 2d 638 (1991); In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, 928 F.2d 1267 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 902, 112 S. Ct. 331, 116 L. Ed. 2d 272 (1991); Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 872 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 499 U.S. 530, 111 S. Ct. 1489, 113 L. Ed. 2d 569 (1991).
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs reiterate many arguments in this action that have been considered and rejected in such cases. Most significantly, Plaintiffs claim that the logic of relatively recent Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions permits the recovery of punitive damages in Warsaw Convention cases, and that Article 25 of the Convention permits an award of punitive damages in cases of "willful misconduct." The Court disagrees, and concludes that plaintiffs attempt to read into those decisions a meaning never intended by their authors.
1. The Zicherman Decision
Plaintiffs claim that many of the cases relied upon by Defendants, such as Korean Air, Lockerbie, and Floyd, have been undercut by Justice Scalia's opinion for the Supreme Court in Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 516 U.S. 217, 116 S. Ct. 629, 133 L. Ed. 2d 596 (1996). In Zicherman, the Court concluded that the Warsaw Convention did not resolve the issues of "who may recover, and what compensatory damages they may receive." Id. at 227, 116 S. Ct. 629 (emphasis added). While Congress may enact special provisions resolving these issues, the Court held that absent such legislation, Articles 17 and 24(2) of the Convention "provide nothing more than a pass-through," and authorize courts to apply the domestic law that would govern in absence of the Warsaw Convention. Id. at 229, 116 S. Ct. 629. Since the Warsaw Convention does not specifically address the issue of punitive damages, Plaintiffs seize on the "pass through" language of Zicherman as support for their claim that punitive damages are not absolutely barred in Warsaw Convention cases. On the strength of that phrase, Plaintiffs argue that courts must determine whether the domestic law applicable under the forum's choice-of-law rules would allow for punitive damages under the circumstances.
No court in any intervening decision has adopted Plaintiffs' analysis of the Zicherman *1071 "pass through" analysis. Those courts that have confronted the issue have noted that Zicherman addressed only those types of compensatory damages available in Warsaw Convention cases, and never spoke in terms broad enough to encompass punitive damages. See, e.g., In re Air Crash Off Point Mugu, California on Jan. 30, 2000, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1162 (N.D.Cal.2001)("The court is of the opinion that the Supreme Court's `pass through' language was discussing only those claims that were not otherwise barred by the Warsaw Convention, and that the Court did not mean to overrule the prohibitions established by the Convention."); In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana on Oct. 31, 1994, 960 F. Supp. 150, 152 (N.D.Ill.1997)("[T]here are ample indications in the [Zicherman] decision that the Court was addressing only the various types of compensatory damages that may be available."). One court expressly noted that Zicherman's repeated references to claims for compensatory damages actually provides support for the conclusion that punitive damages are not recoverable under the Warsaw Convention. See Roselawn, 960 F.Supp. at 152 ("Far from rejecting the lower courts' conclusions that punitive damages are unavailable under the Warsaw Convention, Zicherman actually supports that conclusion by discussing damages in Convention claims purely in terms of compensatory damages."). This Court agrees. When read in its entirety, the Zicherman opinion clearly addresses the sole question of whether the substantive rule for awarding compensatory damages should be taken from French law the language in which the treaty was written and from which the meaning of the term "damages" ("dommage" in the French) must be determined or through application of local law, including the forum's choice of law principles. Because nothing in that discussion supports Plaintiffs' contention, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' reliance on Zicherman is misplaced.[3]
2. The Bali Decision
Plaintiffs also fail to persuade the Court that the case law from other circuits conflicts with the Ninth Circuit's decision in In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia on April 22, 1974, 684 F.2d 1301, 1315 (9th Cir. 1982). Although Plaintiffs assert that Bali requires the Court to apply state or foreign law to decide the issue of whether punitive damages are recoverable in actions governed by the Warsaw Convention, a careful reading of the entire Bali opinion suggests otherwise. The Bali decision reveals the Ninth Circuit's refusal to apply state law in Warsaw Convention cases, to the extent it would circumvent the Convention's limitation on liability. Id. at 1308. However, because the Ninth Circuit concluded that punitive damages were not even recoverable under the applicable choice of law, the court did not have occasion to decide whether punitive damages claims would circumvent the Convention's limitations on liability. Id. at 1315. Since the Ninth Circuit never reached the issue of whether the Warsaw Convention would preempt state laws permitting the recovery of punitive damages, the Court concludes Bali is not determinative here.
3. Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention
Likewise, courts have found unpersuasive Plaintiffs' argument that Article 25 would somehow overturn any punitive damages bar if the carrier commits willful misconduct.[4]See, e.g., Laor v. Air France, *1072 31 F. Supp. 2d 347, 351 (S.D.N.Y.1998) ("A finding of willful misconduct has been held to negate the due care exclusion from liability contained in Article 20 and the monetary limitation of $75,000 in Article 22. . . . However, Article 25 has not been read to expand recovery to include punitive as well as compensatory damages.") (citations omitted); Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 654, 663 (N.D.Cal.1994)("Punitive damages are not recoverable in actions governed by the Warsaw Convention, even if the air carrier engaged in willful misconduct."); Lockerbie, 928 F.2d at 1285-87 (discussing at length the history and purpose of Article 25 and concluding that the Convention's only response to willful misconduct is the lifting of the monetary limit on compensatory damages).
In light of the overwhelming legal authority that exists in support of Defendants' motions, and in the absence of binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent holding otherwise, the Court finds no reason to depart from the generally accepted principle that punitive damages are not available in Warsaw Convention cases. Thus, the Court believes Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary should be GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' punitive damages claims asserted against Defendant SIA should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.[5]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
APPENDIX A
Cases Identified in SIA's Motion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO. PASSENGER(S) CASE NAME CASE NUMBER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. John Diaz Diaz v. SIA CV 00-11879 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Phillip Thomas Thomas v. SIA CV 00-12555 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Walter Lee Young v. SIA CV 01-5261 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Rem Phang Phang v. SIA CV 01-5096 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Michael Peng Peng v. SIA CV 00-13562 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. John Wiggans Wiggans v. SIA CV 01-1471 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Jamal Obagi Obagi v. SIA CV 01-1472 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Peter C.T. Shieh Shieh v. SIA CV 01-0155 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Lee Dan Mei, Yang, et al. v. SIA CV 01-0783 Jonathan Yang, Yang Yang -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Hung Hsiu Yu Chen Chen v. SIA CV 01-1023 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Boris Chen, Huang v. SIA CV 01-1022 Chris Chen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Hector Favela, Favela v. SIA CV 01-1426 Martha Favela -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Helen Broadfoot Broadfoot v. SIA CV 01-5098 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1073 14. Akash Volam Est. of Volam, et al. v. SIA CV 01-1756 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15. Nan Shann Chuang Est. of Chuang, et al. v. SIA CV 01-1754 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16. Neelima Vuppala Est. of Vuppala, et al. v. SIA CV 01-1751 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17. Varaprasad Koppaka v. SIA CV 01-1750 Somasekhara Koppaka ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18. Surya Narayana Est. of Marellapudi, et al. v. SIA CV 01-1755 Marellapudi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19. Janardhan Volam Est. of Volam, et al. v. SIA CV 01-1753 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20. Ching Ying Wu, Est. of Wu, et al. v. SIA CV 01-1752 Richard Wu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21. Christina Reed Reed v. SIA CV 01-1936 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22. David Ralph Ralph v. SIA CV 01-1938 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 23. Jean Roa-Ching Chen Lee, et al. v. SIA CV 01-2015 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 24. Lin Kuang Hui Cheng, et al. v. SIA CV 01-2074 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25. Charles Moore Morly v. SIA CV 01-5099 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 26. Chang Chin Liang, Est. of Liang, et al. v. SIA C V 01-2450 Chang Po Chai ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27. Rabia Aliniazee Aliniazee v. SIA CV 01-5100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 28. Jenny Y. Dwan Est. of Dwan, et al. v. SIA CV 01-2749 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 29. Anthony Woo Woo v. SIA CV 01-3316 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 30. Chan Yu Chau Hsiung, et al. v. SIA CV 01-3356 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 31. Selina Sung, Sung, et al. v. SIA CV 01-3372 Yvannie Sung ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 32. Raju Penmatcha Penmatcha, et al. v. SIA CV 01-5298 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 33. Charles Moore Moore, et al. v. SIA CV 01-4315 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 34. Jeffrey Aw Kivrizis v. SIA CV 01-5076 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 35. Eric Sha Sha v. SIA CV 01-4540 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 36. Jay Spack Spack v. SIA CV 01-5019 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 37. Vivian Chen Chen v. SIA CV 01-4045 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 38. John Harrison, Harrison v. SIA CV 01-5787 Mary Harrison ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 39. Douglas Villermin Villermin v. SIA CV 01-5788 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40. Margaret Rabley Rabley v. SIA CV 01-6323 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 41. Paul Blanchon Blanchon v. SIA CV 01-7255 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 42. Susana Enriquez Dominguez v. SIA CV 01-7256 Dominguez ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 43. Roberto Iglesias Iglesias v. SIA CV 01-7257 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 44. Fuad A. Memon Memon v. SIA CV 01-0777 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 45. Tee Seok Choo Fook, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9048 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 46. Nguyen Van Hien Van Hien, et al. v. SIA CV 01-10173 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 47. Lim Lay Har Heng, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9049 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 48. Lin Hong Wen Lin, et al v. SIA CV 01-9051 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 49. Neo Lee Keow Chye, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9052 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50. Keng Hui Teng Teng, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9053 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 51. Anh Dung Nguyen Nguyen, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9054 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 52. Janardhan Volam Est. of Volam v. SIA CV 01-9069 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 53. Harald Linke Linke v. SIA CV 01-9104 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 54. Ladan Mohajerani, Est. of Mohajerani, et al v. SIA CV 01-9183 Massoud Dabir, An Chi Pang*1074 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55. Cai Von Rumohr Rumohr v. SIA CV 01-9201 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56. Chi An Wei Wei v. SIA CV 01-9198 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57. Richard Nemeth Nemeth v. SIA CV 01-9197 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58. Sally Walker Walker v. SIA CV 01-9200 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59. Steven Courtney, Courtney v. SIA CV 01-10171 Debra Brosnan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60. Lin Ming Liang Lin v. SIA CV 01-9236 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61. Pramod Poddar Est. of Poddar, et al. v. SIA CV 01-10333 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62. Mohammed M. Khan, Khan, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9297 Begum Noor Jehan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63. Tan Yip Thong Koon, et at v. SIA CV 01-10330 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64. Raju Penmatcha Penmatcha, et al. v. SIA CV 01-10340 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65. Tah Hsiang Chen Chen v. SIA CV 01-9350 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66. Teng Kuang Hui, Chang, et al v. United Airlines CV 01-10335 Raju Penmatcha, Anh Dung Nguyen, Neo Lee Keow, Tee Seok Choo, Lim Lay Har, Lin Hong Wen, Tan Yip Thong --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67. Yeh Chi Fua Gin, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9345 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68. Roeup Pork Pork, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9347 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69. William Randazzo Randazzo, et al. v. SIA CV 02-0526 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70. Yong Fen Min, Fen-Kiok Man, et al. v. SIA CV 02-2263 Lee Nyuk Ha, Loida Danner, Lai Chew Yen --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71. Hendric Leenardo, Leenardo, et al. v. SIA CV 02-0524 Anton Gunadi, Lailawati Gunadi, Sigit Suciptoyono --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cases Identified in EVA's Motion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO. PASSENGER(S) CASE NAME CASE NUMBER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Anthony Woo Woo v. SIA CV 01-11174 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. John Harrison, Harrison v. SIA CV 02-2267 Mary Harrison --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Douglas Villermin Villermin v. SIA CV 02-2266 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Paul Blanchon Blanchon v. SIA CV 01-7255 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Johannes Van Van Schijndel v. EVA CV 02-2530 Schijndel, Yue Ying Chuan, Ang Ming Chuang, Ng Siok Chin, Elaine Tan Whee Ling, Chok Fook Chiong --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Francois Parent Parent, et al. v. EVA CV 02-0277 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Susan Enriquez Dominguez v. SIA CV 01-7256 Dominguez --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Roberto Iglesias Iglesias v. SIA CV 01-7257 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*1075 9. Teng Kuang Hui, Chang, et al. v. SIA CV 01-4889 Raju Penmatcha, Anh Dung Nguyen, Neo Lee Keow, Tee Seok Choo, Lim Lay Har, Lin Hong Wen, Tan Yip Thong --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Pramod Poddar Est. of Poddar, et al. v. SIA CV 01-10333 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Yong Fen Min, Fen-Kiok Man, et al. v. SIA CV 02-2263 Lee Nyuk Ha, Loida Danner, Lai Chew Yen --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Hendric Leenardo, Leenardo, et al. v. SIA CV 02-0524 Anton Gunadi, Lailawati Gunadi, Sigit Suciptoyono --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX B --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO. PASSENGER(S) CASE NAME CASE NUMBER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. John Diaz Diaz v. SIA CV 00-11879 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Phillip Thomas Thomas v. SIA CV 00-12555 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Walter Lee Young v. SIA CV 01-5261 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. John Wiggans Wiggans v. SIA CV 01-1471 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Jamal Obagi Obagi v. SIA CV 01-1472 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Hector Favela, Favela v. SIA CV 01-1426 Martha Favela --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Chang Chin Liang, Est. of Liang, et al. v. SIA CV 01-2450 Chang Po Chai --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Margaret Rabley Rabley v. SIA CV 01-6323 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Fuad A. Memon Memon v. SIA CV 01-0777 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Cai Von Rumohr Rumohr v. SIA CV 01-9201 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Chi An Wei Wei v. SIA CV 01-9198 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Richard Nemeth Nemeth v. SIA CV 01-9197 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Sally Walker Walker v. SIA CV 01-9200 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Steven Courtney, Courtney v. SIA CV 01-10171 Debra Brosnan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. Mohammed M. Khan, Khan, et al. v. SIA CV 01-9297 Begum Noor Jehan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. Jeffrey Platz Craig v. SIA CV 00-12786 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTES
[1] Defendants filed these motions in all of the cases listed in Appendix A.
[2] The parties dispute the applicability of the Warsaw Convention in the following cases: Leonardo, et al. v. Singapore Airlines, CV 02-0524; Fen-Kiok Man, et al. v. Singapore Airlines, et al., CV 02-2263; Harrison v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-5787; Penmatcha, et al. v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-5298; Heng v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-9049; Chye, et al. v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-9052; Bich, et al. v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-9054; Hein v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-10173; Fook, et al. v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-9048; Hui v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-9053; Koon, et al. v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-10330; Woo v. Singapore Airlines, CV 01-3316; and Randazzo v. Singapore Airlines, CV 02-0526.
[3] Justice Scalia even noted that, although a jury in the case had awarded punitive damages as part of its verdict, the D.C. Circuit reversed that portion of the judgment a ruling that was not appealed to the Supreme Court.
[4] Article 25(1) of the Convention provides: "The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his willful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the court to which the case is submitted, is considered to be equivalent to willful misconduct."
[5] Although Defendants filed motions for partial summary judgment in over seventy cases (without any regards to whether the plaintiff in each action actually asserted a punitive damages claim), the Court will only enter partial summary judgment in the cases identified in Appendix B. Appendix B contains only those Warsaw Convention cases in which a punitive damages claim has been made, and which are not the subject of Defendants' pending motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Document Info
Docket Number： MDL 1394 GAF(RCx)
Citation Numbers： 219 F. Supp. 2d 1069
Judges： Fees
Filed Date： 8/26/2002
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 8/29/2023