Willis Blake v. American Airlines, Incorporated , 245 F.3d 1213 ( 2001 )

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
----------------------- MAR 12 2001
No. 00-11688 THOMAS K. KAHN
----------------------- CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 99-2508-CV-FAM
WILLIS BLAKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee,
------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
-------------------------
(March 12, 2001)
Before WILSON, KRAVITCH and COX, Circuit Judges.
KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:
I. Issue
This appeal presents the issue whether Jamaica is a High Contracting Party
to the Warsaw Convention.1 We address this issue to determine whether the
district court properly granted Defendant-Appellee American Airlines, Inc.’s
(“American’s”) motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff-
Appellant Willis Blake’s personal injury suit is barred by the Warsaw
Convention’s two-year limitation on actions for damages. For the reasons
discussed below, we hold that Jamaica is a High Contracting Party to the Warsaw
Convention and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
American.
II. Facts
On December 27, 1995, Blake, a United States citizen and resident of
Jamaica, embarked on a round-trip American Airlines flight from Montego Bay,
Jamaica to Hartford, Connecticut. En route, in Miami, Florida, Blake changed
aircrafts and boarded American Airlines Flight 1480, scheduled to fly from Miami
to Hartford. After boarding Flight 1480 and learning that the flight would be
delayed, Blake went to the lavatory and smoked a cigarette. When Blake returned
1
The Warsaw Convention is the common name for the Convention for the Unification of
Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12, 1929, T.S. No. 876 (Oct.
29, 1934), reprinted in note following 49 U.S.C. § 40105.
2
to his seat, a flight attendant questioned him about smoking in the lavatory, and
Blake admitted doing so. The captain and the pilot then approached Blake and
asked him to deplane immediately. After Blake three times refused to leave the
aircraft, the pilot physically removed him from his seat. In the process, Blake hit
his head on the overhead storage compartment and was injured. The police were
summoned and Blake was taken to a hospital where he spent the night before
proceeding to Connecticut. One month later, on January 26, 1996, Blake returned
to Jamaica. Blake filed this lawsuit in Florida state court on August 19, 1999,
approximately three and a half years after the incident. American removed the
action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which granted summary judgment in favor of American because Blake filed this
suit after the expiration of the Warsaw Convention’s two-year limitation on actions
for damages.
III. Standard of review
Construction of the Warsaw Convention is a question of law subject to de
novo review. Piamba Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d 1272, 1280 (11th
Cir. 1999). We also review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment,
applying the same standards as the district court. Harris v. H & W Contracting
Co., 102 F.3d 516, 518 (11th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is appropriate only
3
where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view all the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Harris, 102 F.3d at 518.
IV. Discussion
The Warsaw Convention states that “[t]he right to damages shall be
extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years, reckoned from the date of
arrival at the destination.” Warsaw Convention art. 29(1). Because Blake did not
file this suit until more than three and a half years after he arrived at his
destination,2 the suit is time-barred if the Warsaw Convention applies. The
Warsaw Convention applies to “all international transportation of persons,
baggage, or goods performed by aircraft for hire.” Warsaw Convention art. 1(1).
The Convention defines “international transportation” as
any transportation in which, according to the contract made by the
parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or
not there be a break in the transportation or a transshipment, are
situated either within the territories of two High Contracting Parties,
2
In the case of a round-trip ticket, the place of departure and the place of destination are
the same, see Campbell v. Air Jamaica, Ltd., 863 F.2d 1, 2 (2d Cir. 1988), so Blake arrived at his
“place of destination” when he returned to Jamaica on January 26, 1996.
4
or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party, if there is an
agreed stopping place within [another country].
Warsaw Convention art. 1(2). Because Blake’s place of departure and place
of destination were both Jamaica, his trip from Jamaica to Connecticut and
back would qualify as “international transportation”–and his lawsuit would
be time-barred by Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention–only if Jamaica is a
High Contracting Party to the Convention.
As a colony of the United Kingdom (the “UK”), Jamaica originally
became subject to the Warsaw Convention when the UK signed the
Convention on its own behalf and on behalf of its colonies in 1934. See The
Carriage by Air (Parties to Convention) Order, 1999 (Eng.) (stating that
Jamaica became High Contracting Party to Warsaw Convention on March 3,
1935); cf. Warsaw Convention art. 40(1) (stating that any High Contracting
Party may declare that its acceptance of the Convention does not apply to
any or all of its colonies). The issue before us is whether, by gaining its
independence from the UK in 1962, Jamaica lost its status as High
Contracting Party to the Warsaw Convention. For the reasons discussed
below, we hold that it did not.
5
As a preliminary matter, we recognize that “the conduct of foreign
affairs is a political, not a judicial function,” see Sayne v. Shipley, 418 F.2d
679, 684 (5th Cir. 1969),3 such that upon considering whether Jamaica has
lost its High Contracting Party status, “governmental action in respect to [the
Warsaw Convention] must be regarded as of controlling importance.” See
Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 285 (1902); see also United States ex rel.
Saroop v. Garcia, 109 F.3d 165, 171-72 (3d Cir. 1997). In Saroop, the issue
was whether the nation of Trinidad and Tobago was subject to the terms of
an extradition treaty entered into in 1931 by the United States and Great
Britain. Great Britain originally signed the treaty on its own behalf and on
behalf of its dependent territories, including Trinidad and Tobago, but
Trinidad and Tobago had not ratified the treaty formally since gaining its
independence from Great Britain in 1962. 109 F.3d at 167. The court
resolved the issue by looking to the “intent and actions” of Trinidad and
Tobago and the United States, holding that the nations’ conduct in respect to
the treaty was dispositive. See id. at 171 (citing Terlinden, 184 U.S. at 285).
The court concluded that despite the fact that Trinidad and Tobago never
3
Decisions by the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981 are binding as
precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207
(11th Cir. 1981).
6
expressly confirmed the extradition treaty between itself and the United
States, Trinidad and Tobago was bound by the treaty because it had
indicated by its conduct a clear intent to assume the privileges and
obligations of the treaties Great Britain entered into on its behalf. Saroop at
171-72.
Similarly, because Jamaica has not formally ratified the Warsaw
Convention, we begin our analysis by examining the conduct of the United
States and Jamaica in respect to the Convention to determine whether such
conduct evinces an intent that Jamaica be treated as a High Contracting
Party. The United States Department of State has taken no position on
whether Jamaica is a High Contracting Party to the Convention. See U.S.
Dep’t of State, Treaties in Force 342 (1999) (omitting Jamaica from list of
“States which are parties” to Warsaw Convention, and stating that “status of
certain states to which the [C]onvention was applicable prior to their
becoming independent is not determined”). Jamaica’s conduct in respect to
the Warsaw Convention, however, indicates its clear intent to adopt the
Convention’s privileges and obligations.
First, upon gaining its independence from the UK, Jamaica agreed that
“the newly independent State would assume all Treaty obligations and rights
7
relating to it entered into on its behalf prior to independence by the British
Government . . . .” Report of the Jamaica Independence Conference 12-13
(1962). By taking this position, Jamaica created a presumption that it
intended to be bound by the Warsaw Convention, which the UK entered into
on Jamaica’s behalf when it signed the Convention in 1934. See also
Saroop, 109 F.3d at 173 (“there is a presumption that when a colonized state
earns its independence from a colonial nation, prior treaties recognized by
the former colonial power will devolve to the successor in interest nation”).
Beginning with the presumption that Jamaica intended to remain a High
Contracting Party after gaining its independence from Great Britain, we next
note that Jamaica has never taken formal steps to denounce the Convention,
although the Convention provides that “[a]ny one of the High Contracting
Parties may denounce this convention by a notification addressed to the
Government of the Republic of Poland.” Warsaw Convention art. 39(1).
Although we are aware of the negative implication created by
Jamaica’s failure to adopt the Warsaw Convention formally despite the fact
that it has taken formal steps to succeed to 23 of the 26 multilateral treaties
deposited at the United Nations which Great Britain negotiated on Jamaica’s
behalf, see Alexander v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 757 F.2d 362, 364
8
(D.C. Cir. 1985), we find more compelling the positive implications created
by Jamaica’s affirmative conduct in respect to the Convention. Specifically,
Jamaica has taken an active role in negotiations to amend the Warsaw
Convention, as evidenced by its participation in the Guatemala Protocol
(now known as the Montreal Protocols) to amend the Convention, and its
certification of the Guadalajara Convention, the terms of which expressly
supplement the Warsaw Convention. See Alexander at 364 (citing Jamaica
Gazette, Proclamations, Rules, Regulations 830 (1964)). Moreover, Air
Jamaica, at a time when it was wholly-owned by Jamaica, asserted the
Warsaw Convention as a defense to a lawsuit in a United States court. See
Campbell, 863 F.2d at 1. These actions are consistent with an intent to adopt
the obligations and privileges of the Convention and we hold, therefore, that
Jamaica is a High Contracting Party to the Warsaw Convention.
V. Conclusion
Because Jamaica specifically has expressed an intent to remain subject
to treaties entered into on its behalf by the UK, has never taken formal steps
to denounce the Warsaw Convention, and has indicated by its conduct an
intent to adhere to the Convention, we conclude that Jamaica is a High
Contracting Party to the Warsaw Convention, such that the Convention
9
governs and time-bars Blake’s lawsuit. We therefore affirm the district
court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of American.4
AFFIRMED.
4
A recent opinion from our circuit, Made in the USA Foundation v. United States, No.
99-13138, __ F.3d __ (11th Cir., Feb. 27, 2001), holds that the issue of “what kinds of
agreements require Senate ratification . . . presents a nonjusticiable political question.” Made in
the USA, however, is readily distinguishable from the facts and issues presented in this appeal:
it sought to determine whether a treaty was constitutional, rather than whether a given country
was a signatory to a presumptively constitutional treaty. We therefore conclude that the issue
before us – whether Jamaica is a signatory to the Warsaw Convention – is not a nonjusticiable
political question.
10