Issue: How do you deteremine venue of a case involving an airline disaster?
| Area of Law: | Aviation & Transportation Law, International Law & Global Trade, Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Venue; International airline disasters; Place of business |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 450 N.E. 2d 581; 3 N.Y.2d 1003; 177 F.3d 1272; 170 N.Y.S.2d 340; 147 N.E.2d 732; 5 S.W. 3d 712; 149 N.Y.S.2d 335; 360 F.2d 804; 466 U.S. 408; 644 F.2d 594 |
| Cited Statutes: | Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
The Second Circuit, from the time of Berner v. United Airlines, 2 Misc. 2d 260, 149 N.Y.S.2d 335 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956), aff’d, 3 N.Y.2d 1003, 147 N.E.2d 732, 170 N.Y.S.2d 340 (1957) through Eck v. United Arab Airlines, Inc., 360 F.2d 804 (2d Cir. 1966) has paved the way for expanding U.S. jurisdiction, taking into account such things as interline agreements and the changing nature of the airline business.
In cases involving international airline disasters, the issue of venue is almost always tied to a discussion of choice of law. One of the more thorough discussions can be found in Cortes v. American Airlines, 177 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 1999). In Cortes, Columbia was the place of the crash and the domicile of the plaintiff/decedent. Florida was the domicile of two deceased pilots and where their estates were probated. Texas was American Airlines’ principal place of business, and Delaware was the state where American Airlines was incorporated. The parties argued only Florida and Columbia as proper venues. The court referred to the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, which directs that a "place of business," not the "principle place of business," is the guiding principle. The court explained that while the "principal place of business" gets more weight, because American Airlines had significant business activities in a jurisdiction (as it did in Miami), it was proper to find that Florida had […]