COMPANIA DE AVIACION FAUCETT S.A., APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL K. MULFORD, ROBERT MULFORD, AND JUNE MULFORD, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed a judgment against an airline for willful misconduct under the Warsaw Convention where employees falsely informed passengers their luggage was aboard when it had been removed, allowing recovery beyond the convention's liability limits.
An airline's deliberate or reckless misrepresentation to passengers that their checked luggage was on board when it had been removed constitutes willful misconduct under Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, rendering inapplicable the liability limitations of Article 22(2).
[1] An airline's deliberate or reckless misrepresentation to passengers that their checked luggage is aboard a flight when it has been removed constitutes willful misconduct…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEmployees of Faucett Airlines informed the Mulfords that their luggage was on board their flight from Cuzco to Lima, Peru, when it had actually been r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Warsaw Convention cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Employees of the defendant-airline specifically informed the plaintiffs that their luggage was on board their flight from Cuzco to Lima, Peru, when in fact it had been removed from the plane. As a result, the Mulfords took off without their bags and spent the remainder of their South American trip attempting to secure them and replacing their contents; they were not returned until the plaintiffs had gone home to Iowa after their thus-ruined vacation was long over. After a non-jury trial, the lower court found that the airline had been guilty of “wilful misconduct” under Article 25(1) so as to render inapplicable the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Warsaw Convention, 49 U.S.Stat. 3000 (1934), 49 U.S. C.A. § 1502 (1976), which otherwise severely limit an international air carrier’s liability for the mishandling of checked luggage. That conclusion is well-supported by the evidence concerning the misinformation which was deliberately or recklessly given to the plaintiffs concerning the whereabouts of their baggage. Cohen v. Varig Airlines, 62 A.D.2d 324, 405 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1978), and cases cited. Since we similarly find no error in the other issues presented, the judgment entered below for damages in excess of the liability limitation is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Floyd v. E. Airlines, Inc., 872 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1989)…s that Article 25 “excepts from the limit on the carrier’s liability, injury or death caused by the carrier’s ‘willful misconduct.’” 684 F. 2d at 1305. Finally, in affirming the court below, the court in Compania de Aviacion Faucett S.A. v. Mulford, 386 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.1980), expressly stated that "the lower court found that the airline had been guilty of 'wilful misconduct’ under Article 25(1) so as to render inapplicable the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Warsaw Convention.” It is difficu…