How to Achieve the Best Results for Non-American Victims of Foreign Air Crashes Marc S. Moller Kreindler & Kreindler LLP 750 Third Ave. Ne York, New York NY 10017 Ehud Stein, Esq. St i Singer Stein, Si &C Co. Saadia Gaon Street 24 Tel-Aviv, 67135 Israel John Beer, Esq. Weteringschans 85-87 1017 RZ Amsterdam The Netherlands Urban Olson Olson, Esq. Esq Engelbrektsgatan 9-11 14 32 Stockholm, Sweden Deborah Elsasser, Esq. Clyde & Co US LLP The Chrysler Building 16th Floor 405 Lexington L i t A Avenue New York, New York 10174 Passengers vs. Aviation Defendants • Passengers vs. • Airline • Manufacturer • Maintenance M i t Co. C • Government • Other What are the true competing interests? P Passengers vs. Aviation A i ti Defendants D f d t Passenger Passengers seek maximum compensation f Death/Injury for D th/I j Aviation Defendants • • • • Avoid Liability, if possible. Minimize exposure. Avoid bad publicity and negative PR impact impact. Keep costs of doing business as low as possible maximize profit possible, profit. • Keep insurance premiums as low as possible. • Insurers, Insurers the aviation defendants’ defendants surrogate wants to maximize profit. • Limit claims claims. Surprise! Plane crashes; what happens? 1. Ambulances come to the scene. 2. Survivors grieve or nurse injuries. 3. Airline expresses condolences. 1. Sets up a hotline 2. Assists passengers 3. Offers Off modest cash advances 4. Government investigators come to accident site and hold news conferences conferences. 5. Insurers meet and set a tentative “reserve”. y 6. Victims contact lawyers. “Hypothetical”* y A new twin-engine “Boing” plane operated by “MLK Airlines” carrying y g 74 p passengers g crashes on final approach to Schipol Airport in Amsterdam the Netherlands. “MLK Airlines” is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the Netherlands. “Boing” has its headquarters in Illinois and has manufacturing facilities throughout the United States. The “Royce Rolls” engines which powered the airplane were shipped p was to the United States where the airplane assembled. The crash caused deaths and injuries... *Any similarities to actual companies, corporations or entities is purely coincidental and no inferences should be drawn there from Cont’d A post-crash investigation conducted by the Dutch Civil Aviation Authority concluded that the causes of the crash include A. A manufacturing defect in the port side Royce Rolls engine compressor. B The B. Th fli flight ht crew’s ’ failure f il tto follow f ll th the Pil Pilott O Operating ti Handbook procedures for continuation of flight following a single engine failure. C. Despite the engine failure, had the crew followed the required single-engine-out emergency procedures the crash might not have occurred occurred. D. The Dutch authority concluded, that the plane and engine manufacturers and airline share responsibility f the for th accident. id t The elephant in the room Passenger #1 An Israeli resident who carried an Israeli Passport, purchased his ticket in Tel Aviv Aviv, was traveling on a TLV TLV-JFK-TLV JFK TLV itinerary, itinerary perished in the crash. He owned apartments in both New York and Tel Aviv and maintained cars at both of his homes. In connection with his professional activities he divided his time equally between NY and Tel Aviv. He was 35 years old, survived byy his wife and minor child. His annual earnings g were approximately $100,000 U.S. per year. He was also a principal owner of a high tech company, incorporated in New York with plans to “go York, go public public” in the U U.S. S within six months of the crash. The decedent decedent’s s wife comes to Ehud Stein and asks “What What do I do now?” now? HEADS OF DAMAGES UNDER ISRAELI LAW • After 64 years of independence the Israeli tort law is still much alike the British Common law system especially as far as compensation are awarded. • Few innovations were introduced introduced, one of them is highly relevant is compensating the estate of an accident victim for his earning in the lost years (i.e. Loss of future earnings ) earnings.) In case of fatal accident: the estate is entitled to: 1. Burial Costs and Expenses (not including traditional expenses of a specific ethnic community) 2. Loss of income in the lost years. * see a comment next slide. 3. non pecuniary damages. (Pain & suffering). * Modestly awarded. In case of fatal accident the dependents are entitled to: 1. The widow may recover her husband’s share in his retirement pension scheme. 2. To children entitled to loss of support until 18 years and if in compulsory military service until til 21. 21 3. Loss of services as husband and father (this is not lost of companionship ii.e. e non-pecuniary damage) Conflict between heads of damages • Estate is entitled to loss of earning in the lost years (less Expenses spared, approx. Third) • Dependents are entitled to recover their loss of support support, usually calculated taking into account the number of house hold member and the joint income income. • Insurer is not exposed to double risk. • Higher calculation overrules. In case of bodily injury • • • • • Loss of income (past & future) and pension. Third party assistance assistance. Extra mobility expenses. Ad t ti off dwelling. Adaptation d lli Medical & rehabilitation treatments and f iliti required facilities i db beyond d th those supplied li d b by the state. • Non pecuniary damages- pain &suffering. Calculated according the severity of the i j injury. Passenger #2 A 45 year old Swedish citizen who had come to the United States on a business trip was travelling on a Stockholm Stockholm-JFK-TLV-Stockholm JFK TLV Stockholm ticket. He sustained catastrophic paraplegic injuries and is permanently disabled. The victim is married, has a minor child who is 15 years old. The victim’s wife comes to Urban and asks “How will my husband’s medical expenses be covered? How will our family meet its living expenses if my husband can no long work at his $75,000 $ job as an engineer in one of Holland’s most prominent firms? He was certain to have several promotions, maybe even to top management job within ten years. Our family has been de astated b devastated by this crash and m my h husband’s sband’s inj injuries. ries He is not onl only ph physically, sicall but psychologically broken and in constant pain. Can you help us?” HEADS OF DAMAGES UNDER SWEDISH LAW Injury Case 1. Medical Costs and Other Costs of the Injured Party and d Related R l t dP Persons 1. Loss of Income 2. Pain and Suffering, Disfigurement and Inconveniences and “General General Difficulties Difficulties” Death Case 1. Funeral Costs and Related Expenses 2. Loss of Support 3 Traumatic Grief of Relative or People Otherwise 3. “related” to Decedent European Union; 27 Member States Each with its own legal system ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON EU Legislation • Regulations passed by European Parliament • Directives, Directives Decisions, Decisions Recommendations and Opinions passed by combinations of Parliament Council and Commission Parliament, ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON Rome II Treaty/Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 864/200 • All EU States • Events occurring after entry into force (Art 31) • Products: law of country of habitual residence of victim if product marketed there, Art 5.1 (a) • Country in which the product was acquired if product marketed there, Art 5.1 (b) • Cou Country t y where e e damage da age occurred occu ed if p product oduct marketed there, Art 5.1 (c) The 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability: • • • • All damage caused by product P Personal l injury i j Damage to tangible property Except product itself and consequential p by y economic loss unless accompanied other damage ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON Signatories • • • • • • • • • • • • • Belgium, Croatia, Finland Finland, France, Italy, Luxemburg Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, P t Portugal, l Serbia, Slovenia, S i and Spain, d the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON The 1973 Hague Convention on th Law the L Applicable A li bl tto P Products d t Liability: y • The law of the state of the principal place person claimed to be of business of the p liable ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON French Supreme Court decision December 7, 7 2011 • Found U.S. Court of Appeal decision to violate § 33 of Montreal 99 Convention • Refused to exercise jurisdiction • Probable general applicability in all EU states “[è]tre appliquée sur l´ensemble du territoire l´Union européenne sur la base du critéres uniformes /../” (page 52) • Result that no EU state is “alternative forum” for FNC purposes (in carrier cases) ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON Passenger #3 A 30 year old Dutch citizen who purchased his AMS-TLV-AMS ticket in Amsterdam also perished in the crash crash. He is survived by his parents and was their sole source of support. Since graduating from university he distinguished himself as one of Holland’s most accomplished computer scientists and was in the early stages of what promised to be a highly successful career. At the time of his death he was earning g approximately pp y $50,000 per year. The victim’s father comes to John and says “We are lost without our son. What do my wife and I do now?” Dutch Damages Personal Injury Claims 1. Pain and suffering 2. Medical and other expenses not paid by insurance p not p paid through g social benefits 3. Costs of care and household help 4. Loss of earnings including loss of career opportunities minus disability 5 Out-of-Court 5. Out of Court attorneys fees and expert costs Death Claims 1. Burial expenses not paid by insurance 2. Loss of financial (or domestic) support 3. Out-of-Court attorneys fees and expert costs What about Friendship? p • American initiative after World War II • Development of international trade • Treaty y of Friendship, p, Commerce and Navigation between the Kingdom of The Netherlands and the United States of A America i 1956 • “National treatment with respect to access t the to th Courts C t within ithi territories t it i off the th other th Party” Passenger #4 A 45 year old Connecticut domiciliary and head of household survived by his wife and two minor children perished in the crash. He was traveling on a JFK-TLV-JFK ticket purchased in New York. At the time of his death he enjoyed a career as a hedge fund manager and earned on-average in excess of $1 million a year. Who wants this case? FNC CONSIDERATONS • American among passengers and party to law suit (not enough; Air France 447 crash over Atlantic Ocean) • Breach of U.S: corporate policy or safety rules (not enough ; Cessna Runway Incursion, Milan Italy, kept sole U.S. resident plaintiff) • Product designed in the U.S. and evidence there (good enough; Silk Air) • U.S. one of the five exclusive Montreal 99 jurisdictions (not enough; West Caribbean; however note French Supreme p Court decision December 7, 2011) ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON FNC CONSIDERATONS Cont’d Cont d • Maintenance of aircraft performed in the U.S. (good enough; West Caribbean) • poses a threat to American travelers ((still untried)) Defect p • Cause of defect investigated by U.S. prosecutors (still untried) • Not all defendants join FNC motion (expected requirement in U.S. jurisdictions) ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON Is The United States the optimum venue? • Yes, if FNC cleared and a consolidated action re carrier liability is not essential • No, if FNC remains a substantial threat and there is access to European court that will apply Hague 1973 Treaty and U.S. law (e.g. DHL DHL-Bashkirian Bashkirian mid mid-air air crash) ADVOKATFIRMAN URBAN OLSON Forum Non Conveniens in Montreal Convention Cases 38 The Montreal Convention • • Replaces the Warsaw Convention system of liability Contains few “new” principles and essentially consolidates the existing “Warsaw System” Warsaw Convention (1929) + Hague Protocol (1955) + Guadalajara Supplementary Convention (1961) + Guatemala City Protocol (1971) + Montreal Protocol No. 4 (1975) + IATA A Agreements t (1995) = Montreal Convention of 1999 Article 1 - Applicability • Montreal Convention applies to “all international carriage of persons, baggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward.” • Article 1(2) defines “international international carriage” carriage – the place of departure and the place of destination, are within: • “the territories of two State Parties”, or • “the territory of a single State Party, if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory of another St t even if that State, th t State St t is i nott a State St t Party.” P t ” What Treaty y Applies, pp , If Any? y State A State B State C •Warsaw Convention •Warsaw Convention •None •Hague Protocol •Hague Protocol •Montreal Protocol 4 •Montreal Protocol 4 •Montreal Convention State D •Warsaw Convention •Hague Protocol •Montreal Protocol 4 •Montreal Convention One-Way Transportation: State A to State B: Warsaw Convention as amended by Hague Protocol & MP4 St t A tto St State State t D D: Montreal M t l Convention C ti State D to State A: Montreal Convention State A to State C: No treaty applies Round-Trip Transportation:: The treaty of the state of departure and final destination applies RoundState A to State B to State A: Montreal Convention State A to State C to State A: Montreal Convention Jurisdictional Defenses Under the Montreal Convention 1. Treaty Jurisdiction: If the Montreal Convention applies, does a US court have treaty jurisdiction per Article 33? 2. Forum Non Conveniens: even if there is jurisdiction in the US, is the US the most convenient forum in which to litigate the case? Treaty Jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention • • Subject j Matter/Treaty y Jurisdiction: if the carriage g is governed by Montreal Convention – does the court have subject matter jurisdiction in the US per Article 33? An action for damages must be brought in one of five places: 1. Carrier’s domicile; 2. Carrier’s principal place of business; 3. Place where contract was made; 4. Final destination; or 5 Principal and permanent residence of the pax if there is 5. personal jurisdiction over the carrier in that jurisdiction (for bodily injury and death cases). Forum Non Conveniens (“FNC”) • Even if there is Article 33 jjurisdiction in the US,, is the US the most convenient forum for the litigation? • FNC Steps: FNC doctrine as applied by most courts in the US involves a 3-step analysis: 1 What deference should be given to a plaintiff’s 1. plaintiff s choice of forum? 2. Is the an adequate alternative forum? 3. Balance “private interest factors” and “public interest factors” Issue: FNC and the Montreal Convention • If there is treaty jurisdiction under MC Article 33 ma a co may court rt dismiss the action on FNC Grounds? Gro nds? – No: Hosaka v. United Airlines, Inc., 305 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1227 (2003) – FNC dismissal not allowed if the court has treaty jurisdiction per Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention. – Yes: Pierre Pierre-Louis Louis v. Newvac Corp., 584 F.3d 1052 (11th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3387 (June 7, 2010) – FNC dismissal allowed even if the court has treaty jurisdiction per Article 33 because Article 33(4) states that “Questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the court seised of the case.” In US, FNC is a procedural question. French Cour de Cassation Decision in West Caribbean Airways – Impact? US courts have held that a plaintiff’s refusal to litigate in the alternative forum does not render the forum “unavailable” unavailable • Navarrete De Pedrero v. v Schweizer Aircraft Corp Corp., 635 F. Supp. 2d 251 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) • Morales v. Ford Motor Co., 313 F. Supp. 2d 672 (S.D. Tex 2004) French Cour de Cassation Decision in West Caribbean Airways – Impact? US courts have refused to reinstate US lawsuits where there is a manipulation of the pleadings or proceedings • In re Air Crash Over the Mid-Atlantic on June 1, 2009, 792 F. Supp 2d 1090 (N.D. Supp. (N D Cal Cal. 2011) • Del Istmo Assur. Corp. v. Platon, 2011 WL 5508641 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2011) • In I re Bridgestone/Firestone, B id t /Fi t Inc. I Tires Ti Products P d t Liability Li bilit Litigation, 470 F. Supp. 2d 917 (S.D. Ind. 2006) • Aguina v. Texaco, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
© Copyright 2024