Reed v. Delta Airlines, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2011). The plaintiff and her dog, Blondie, arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport to check in for their flight to Ghana. Delta personnel informed the plaintiff that she lacked certain documents that Ghana required for Blondie to enter the country. The plaintiff put Blondie in a cab to her son's home and reentered the terminal, only to later discover that Blondie had departed with the plaintiff's passport. In accordance with Delta's conditions of carriage, the airline's personnel refused to transport the plaintiff due to her failure to present a passport, and they rebooked her on a subsequent flight. The plaintiff sued Delta, claiming that it was liable for refusing to transport her (and Blondie, the co-plaintiff) under breach of contract, implied contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing causes of action, and under several tort causes of action as well. The plaintiff requested damages totaling over $1.2 million. Delta moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had not breached the parties' contract, that the plaintiff's implied contract and good faith and fair dealing claims failed given the existence of an express contract between the parties and that the plaintiffs' tort claims were preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b), the preemption provision of the Airline Deregulation Act. The court agreed. The court held that the plaintiff's breach of contract claim failed because Delta had "acted within its rights" under its conditions of carriage, which specifically allowed the airline to refuse to transport the plaintiff for failing to present a passport and to refuse to transport Blondie because the plaintiff lacked certain documents required by Ghana. The court agreed that the plaintiff's implied contract and good faith and fair dealing claims failed because the parties had entered into an express contract. The court then turned to the plaintiff's various tort claims. It held that not only were the plaintiff's tort claims preempted by the ADA because they all "involve[d] Delta's boarding practice which is an airline service," but because also they lacked substantive merit, and it analyzed the deficiencies of each claim.
Read more detail on Recent Aviation Law Posts –Legal notice about the Airline not liable for refusing to transport customer who lacked required travel documents rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Airline not liable for refusing to transport customer who lacked required travel documents?