Airline's Failure to Move Asthmatic Passenger Away from Smoke Causing His Death Is "Accident" within the Meaning of the Warsaw Convention
美国最高法院裁定，航空公司拒绝将哮喘乘客调离吸烟区致其死亡，构成《华沙公约》第17条下的“事故”，航空公司需承担责任。
Olympic Airways v. Husain, 124 S. Ct. 1221, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1146, 2004 U.S. Lexis 1620 (U.S. Supreme Court--February 24, 2004) In December 1997, Dr. Abid Hanson took a trip with his family and friends from San Francisco to Athens and Cairo, flying Olympic Airways. When he discovered that Olympic permitted smoking during international flights, he was more than a bit upset because he had a history of recurrent anaphylactic reactions to cigarette smoke. He made it to Europe and Africa but died on the return flight. On that return flight, Hanson and his wife (Rubina Husain, who as executor of his estate prosecuted the claim) begged airline personnel to move him further away from the smoking section of the airplane, but the flight crew refused, falsely claiming that the flight was full and also neglecting to tell Hanson that the flight had 28 nonrevenue passengers (i.e., airline employees), 15 of whom were farther away from the smoking section and could have switched seats with Hanson. In addition, it appears from the Court's discussion of the facts that the airline also declined to ask any of the smokers to refrain from or reduce their smoking due to Hanson's condition and failed to do so even when he began exhibiting signs of distress. As if in a bad horror movie, Hanson's condition steadily worsened during the flight but the airline nonetheless did not move him away from the smokers. He began having an allergic reaction and died despite being given shots of epinephrine, CPR, and oxygen. Hanson's estate sued Olympic Airways, seeking recovery pursuant to Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, an international compact governing recovery for injuries on international airplane flights. Article 17 of the Convention provides The carrier shall be liable for sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the which the so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. See 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1620 at *10. In a Warsaw Convention claim, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of liability by showing that the injury was caused by an accident within the meaning of Article 17. If the plaintiff makes this showing, the airline is then given the opportunity to demonstrate that it took necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for the airline to take such measures. See id. at *11 (citing Article 20 of the Convention). In a sense, the Convention is a bit more pro-plaintiff than most state tort law in that the claimant need only prove accidental injury, with a presumption of negligence created by the Convention and the defendant required to disprove or rebut the presumption of airline negligence. However, damages available under the Convention are capped at set maximums in a manner similar to state workers' compensation statutes unless the plaintiff can show that the injury resulted from wilful misconduct by the airline, in which case the cap is not operative. The airline also has the opportunity to show comparative negligence by the plaintiff passenger, which, if shown, reduces the amount of any award of damages. See id. at *11. In the Husain v. Olympic case, plaintiff first filed the action in California state court as a wrongful death claim. The airline removed the case to federal court because the case was controlled by the Warsaw Convention. The federal district court found that the airline was responsible for Hanson's death and that the scenario qualified as an accident under Article 17 of the Convention. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case focusing on the question of whether the incident was an accident within the meaning of the Convention. Under the facts of the case, the airline was hard pressed to argue that it did all it could for Hanson or that it was not negligent, probably wilfully so. …