Kruger v. United Airlines, Inc.

Citations: 481 F. Supp. 2d 1005; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14747; 2007 WL 708594Docket: C 06-04907 MHP

Court: District Court, N.D. California; March 1, 2007; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs Ruth Ellen Kruger and Daniel Ronald Kruger filed a complaint against United Airlines, Inc., UAL Corporation, and individual defendants Xiaoyan Wei, Yaping Huang, and Yuying Huang, alleging tort claims for injuries sustained by Ruth Kruger during boarding of United Flight 794 from San Francisco to Seattle on August 20, 2004. The individual defendants were barred from boarding due to disorderly behavior and, while waiting, Ruth Kruger was struck on the head by a backpack swung by one of the defendants, resulting in pain and subsequent severe illness during the flight, including unconsciousness and vomiting. Upon landing, she was taken to a hospital for treatment. The plaintiffs assert negligence against United for failing to prevent the incident, inadequately training staff, and not providing timely medical care. Daniel Kruger claims loss of consortium due to his wife's injuries. The issue at hand is whether the claims fall under the Montreal Convention or common law tort principles, with Ruth Kruger indicating she had purchased a round-trip international ticket involving multiple flight segments. A motion to dismiss by United Airlines is currently pending.

Ruth Kruger alleges that her return flight, United Flight 794 from San Francisco to Seattle, is part of an "undivided international carriage," making the Warsaw Convention, Montreal Convention, and/or IATA and ATA Agreements applicable to her claims. In response, United filed a motion to dismiss on December 8, 2006, asserting that Kruger cannot bring claims under the Warsaw Convention or common law tort claims. At a hearing on January 22, 2007, the court addressed the legal standard for dismissing a motion, which requires denying dismissal unless it is evident that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would allow for relief. 

United contends that if the Warsaw Convention applies, it serves as the exclusive remedy for the injuries claimed, thereby barring common law tort claims. The parties concurred that the Montreal Convention, enacted in 2003, instead governs the case since the events occurred in 2004. The court acknowledged that arguments regarding the Warsaw Convention's provisions must be considered under the Montreal Convention, noting a key difference: the Montreal Convention sets a legal standard limiting carrier liability to damages not exceeding 100,000 Special Drawing Rights unless the carrier proves its non-negligence. Consequently, the plaintiffs are required to amend their complaint to align with the Montreal Convention and specify damages that meet the threshold outlined in Article 21(2). The court affirmed that the Montreal Convention, like the Warsaw Convention, provides the exclusive legal framework for lawsuits against air carriers related to international transportation injuries.

The Montreal Convention applies to a domestic flight that is part of an undivided international journey, as agreed by the parties. Plaintiffs allege that the flight in question is part of such a journey, leading to the preemption of state law tort claims, including negligence and emotional distress, against United Airlines. Daniel Kruger's loss of consortium claim, based on United's alleged negligence during his wife's boarding and flight, is also addressed. While the Convention preempts state law claims related to personal injuries sustained during international air travel, it allows domestic law to determine the cognizability of loss of consortium claims. Under California law, compensatory damages for loss of consortium are permitted, making the claim cognizable under the Montreal Convention.

United seeks to dismiss claims for punitive damages and emotional distress not arising from physical injuries, citing that punitive damages are not available under the Convention and that emotional distress claims are limited to those associated with physical injuries. There is no dispute on the emotional distress issue, confirming that such claims are limited to injuries sustained by Ruth Ellen Kruger. 

Additionally, United argues that plaintiffs have failed to allege the necessary elements of a claim under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, which requires proof of bodily injury caused by an accident. The plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged bodily injuries, specifically head injuries sustained by Ruth Kruger, which occurred during boarding and the flight. The court concludes that the definition of "accident" includes unexpected events, supporting the plausibility of the plaintiffs' claims based on unusual behavior by other passengers.

Consequently, the court grants United's motion to dismiss in part concerning state law tort claims, punitive damages, and emotional distress claims unrelated to injuries, while denying in part the motion regarding claims under the Montreal Convention. The plaintiffs are ordered to amend their complaint to specifically allege claims under the Montreal Convention within twenty days.