Issue: How do you determine the ‘ultimate destination’ under Warsaw Convention Article 28?
| Area of Law: | Aviation & Transportation Law |
| Keywords: | Ultimate Destination; Warsaw Convention Article 28; Airline |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 188 Cal. Rptr. 628; 376 N.E.2d 929; 211 N.Y.S. 2d 208; 405 N.Y.S.2d 456; 739 A.2d 442; 360 F.2d 804; 542 N.E.2d 69; 57 A.D.2d 370; 395 N.Y.S.2d 7 |
| Cited Statutes: | Warsaw Convention Article 28 |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
In Rinck v. Deutsche Lufthansa A.G., 57 A.D.2d 370, 395 N.Y.S.2d 7 (1977), aff’d, 44 N.Y.2d 714, 376 N.E.2d 929, 405 N.Y.S.2d 456 (1978), the court pointed out that courts and commentators are almost unanimous in concluding that the “place of destination” referred to in the Warsaw Convention in a trip consisting of several parts is the ultimate destination. Thus, in Duff v. Varig Airlines, Inc., 542 N.E.2d 69 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989), the court concluded that the destination of round-trip transportation, whether or not there is a break in travel, is the agreed final stopping place, which is usually the place of departure. Duff is one of many cases that cites Eck v. United Arab Airlines, Inc., 360 F.2d 804 (2d Cir. 1966). The Duff court stressed that “destination” is the place of ultimate destination, and not the destination of a particular stopping point.
In Steber v. British Caledonian Airways, Ltd., 549 So. 2d 986 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989), the court held that even when an airline makes arrangements for passengers to fly on another airline for a leg of the trip, the ultimate destination is unchanged. See also Carroll v. United Airlines, Inc., 739 A.2d 442 (N. J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999) (when third parties act in furtherance of air carriage, Warsaw ultimate-destination test applies). And in Galli v. Re-Al Braziallian International Airlines, 29 Misc. 2d 499,