Air France vs.

Saks
Facts:
Respondent Saks, felt a severe pressure and pain and eventually suffered a permanent
hearing loss in her left ear while she was a passenger on an international flight operated by
the petitioner’s airline, Air France, as it descended to land in Los Angeles on a trip from Paris.
The alleged cause was normal cabin pressurization changes during landing. Saks sued Air
France for damages under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. The district court granted
summary judgment for the airline on the ground that an injury caused by an air carrier's
normal operation is not an "accident" within the meaning of Article 17. Relying on precedent
that defines the term “accident” in Article 17 as an “unusual or unexpected” happening, the
district court ruled Saks could not recover damages unless she could show some malfunction
or abnormality in the aircraft's operation. Article 17 provides:
The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding
of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused
the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the
operations of embarking or disembarking.

The Court of Appeals reversed its judgement, holding that pressurization of an aircraft
does fit the definition of "aircraft accident" as that term is used in the aviation context. In
reaching its decision, the court emphasized that the trend is to construe broadly the accident
provision of article 17 to afford greater protection to passengers." As a policy consideration, the
court noted that an air carrier is in the best position to allocate efficiently the costs of liability
for passenger injuries.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages under Article 17 of the Warsaw
Convention in so far the terms “accident” and “occurrence” are concerned.

Ruling:
Liability under Article 17 arises only if a passenger's injury is caused by an unexpected
or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger, and not where the injury
results from the passenger's own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected
operation of the aircraft, in which case it has not been caused by an accident under Article 17.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of court of appeals, ruling that an injury
resulting from the normal operation of an airplane's pressurization system is not covered by
the accident provision of article 17. In defining the term "accident" as used in this international
air treaty, the Court looked to the text of the Convention. Speaking for the majority, Justice
O'Connor reasoned that because the drafters used the word "accident" in the article 17
provision dealing with passenger injuries' and "occurrence" to apply to damage to baggage
under article 18, they intended these terms to have different meanings.