 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Romano v. American Trans Air8/29/1996
VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
Daniel Romano sued American Trans Air (and others who are not parties to this appeal) to recover damages after he was battered by another passenger while on a flight from Los Angeles to Hawaii. American Trans Air demurred, contending Romano's claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (the ADA, 49 U.S.C.S. § 41713(b)(1)). The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and Romano appeals from the judgment of dismissal thereafter entered. We reverse, concluding that the ADA does not so completely preempt the field of airline regulation as to preclude a personal injury action for damages suffered as the result of a flight attendant's failure to restrain one passenger from attacking another passenger.
Discussion
I.
Prior to 1978, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA) gave the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) authority to regulate interstate air fares and to take administrative action against certain deceptive trade practices. It did not, however, expressly preempt state regulation; to the contrary, it contained a savings clause (49 U.S.C.S. § 1506) making it clear that its provisions were in addition to the remedies then existing at common law and by statute. ( Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1992) 504 U.S. 374, 378 [119 L. Ed. 2d 157, 163-164, 112 S. Ct. 2031].) In 1978, Congress determined that " 'maximum reliance on competitive market forces' " would best further the " 'variety quality . . . of air transportation services' " and, to that end, enacted the ADA. (Ibid. [ 119 L. Ed. 2d at p. 164].) "To ensure that the States would not undo federal deregulation with regulation of their own," the ADA included a preemption provision prohibiting the states from enforcing any law " 'relating to rates, routes, or services' of any air carrier." ( Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., (supra) , 504 U.S. at pp. 378-379 [119 L. Ed. 2d at p. 164]; 49 U.S.C.S. § 1305(a)(1).)
The ADA retained the CAB's enforcement authority regarding rates and deceptive trade practices (which was transferred to the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1985), and it also retained the FAA's savings clause (49 U.S.C.S. § 1506), which was recodified in 1994 as section 40120(c), and revised to provide that " remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law." Also in 1994, the ADA's preemption provision (49 U.S.C.S. § 1305) was recodified as section 41713(b)(1), and revised to provide that "a State . . . may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier. . . ."
II.
In Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., (supra) , 504 U.S. 374, the Supreme Court held that the ADA preempted state regulation of allegedly deceptive airline fare advertisements because such regulations have "a connection with, or reference to, airline 'rates, routes, or services,' " but left open the question about where the preemption line ought to be drawn. ( Id. at pp. 384, 390 [119 L. Ed. 2d at pp. 167-168, 171-172].) In American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens (1995) 513 U.S. 219, [130 L. Ed. 2d 715, 722, 115 S. Ct. 817], the Supreme Court revisited the preemption issue in a class action attacking an airline's retroactive changes to the terms of its frequent flier program. This time, the Court held the claims based on the state's consumer fraud statute were preempted but the claims alleging breach of contract were not : "We do not read the ADA's preemption clause . . . to shelter airlines from suits alleging no violation of state-imposed obligations, but seeking recovery solely for the airline's alleged breach of it
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|