Surina Crawford v. Delta Airlines

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON
SURINA R. CRAWFORD, SHELBY CIRCUIT No. 60468 T.D.
C.A. No. 02A01-9612-CV-00296
Plaintiff,
Hon. James E. Swearengen, Judge
V.
DELTA AIRLINES, INC.,
A Delaware Corporation,
FILED
September 18, 1997
Defendant.
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
JOSEPH K. WILLCOX, Kim, Willcox & McArthur, Memphis, Attorney for Plaintiff. Clerk
Appellate C ourt
EDWARD P. A. SMITH and STEPHEN P. MILLER, McDonald Kuhn, Memphis,
Attorneys for Defendant.
REVERSED AND DISMISSED
Opinion filed:
TOMLIN, Sr. J.,
Surina Crawford (hereafter “Plaintiff”) filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Shelby County against Delta Airlines (hereafter “Defendant” or “Delta”) seeking
damages for the loss of four pieces of luggage and their contents which
occurred while on a trip utilizing both Delta and another airline, Trans World
Airlines (“TWA”). At trial Delta contended that its liability, if any, was limited to
the sum of $1,250, as established by domestic tariff rules adopted by the airlines
and incorporated by reference in its tickets. The trial court submitted the issue of
Plaintiff’s notice of the tariff and that of Plaintiff’s alleged damages to the jury as
fact issues. At the close of Plaintiff’s proof and again at the close of all the proof
Delta made a motion for directed verdict on the ground that Plaintiff failed to
prove her damages. The trial court overruled the motion and the jury returned
its verdict, finding that Plaintiff had not received adequate notice of the
limitation of liability for lost property pursuant to the airline tariff and awarded
Plaintiff a judgment in the amount of $6,466 as her damages. On appeal Delta
has raised three issues for our consideration: Whether the trial court erred in (1)
1
holding as a matter of law that TWA was acting as an agent for the Delta; (2)
refusing to limit Delta’s liability to the sum of $1,250, as provided by the tariff; and
(3) overruling Delta’s motion for a directed verdict on the ground that Plaintiff
failed to prove her damages. Inasmuch as our resolution of the third issue is
dispositive of this litigation, we pretermit the first two issues and reverse and
dismiss Plaintiff’s suit on the ground that the trial court should have directed a
verdict as to damages in favor of Defendant.
Most of the underlying facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff purchased an
airline ticket from a local travel agency in Memphis for round-trip travel from
Memphis to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On the outbound leg of the trip she traveled
from Memphis to Atlanta on Delta, where she transferred to TWA for the flight to
Ft. Lauderdale. Plaintiff had no trouble with her baggage on this leg of the trip.
Plaintiff’s ticket was a round-trip ticket. On returning to Memphis, she
checked four bags with TWA in Ft. Lauderdale. Her tickets called for her to
return to Memphis from Atlanta on Delta. When she arrived in Memphis and
went to the baggage claim section for her luggage, they were not there. Upon
returning to the airport the following day her bags still had not arrived. She
subsequently filled out a passenger property loss claim form presented to her by
Delta. Several days after concluding her return flight to Memphis Plaintiff
submitted the completed loss baggage claim form to Delta, which contained
the following items which she sought to recover:
ITEM DESCRIPTION DATE PURCHASED C O ST N EW
Luggage Set 4 Piece 200.00
Black/w hite
tweed
Smallest Bag Bag of Shoes 660.00
Next smallest bag Bag of summer 1,080.00
clothes
Medium Bag Wa rm-ups & gym 1,426.00
clothing
Largest Bag Dress Clothing 3,100.00
2
Tota l Value U.S.$
$6,466.00 $6,466.00
Shortly thereafter Delta informed Plaintiff that her missing baggage had
not turned up and that pursuant to the provisions of the tariff and ticket contract
covering her travel Delta’s liability was limited to $1,250.00. In order to settle this
loss Delta tendered a check to Plaintiff for this amount, less monies previously
advanced to her, which she declined.
It can be noted that from the portion of the Plaintiff’s lost baggage claim
form introduced into evidence, the amount of Plaintiff’s claim, $6,466.00, was
based upon and represented the “cost new” of the four pieces of luggage,
along with their contents. As noted, the trial court permitted the issue of notice
to Plaintiff of the tariff limitations as well as the damage issue to go to the jury,
who found that there was inadequate notice and that Plaintiff’s damages
amounted to the amount set forth in her lost property claim form, namely,
$6,466.00. This appeal followed.
I. The Directed Verdict Issue.
The action of a trial judge in ruling on a motion for directed verdict is one
of law, and is therefore reviewed de novo. Adams v. Dean Roofing Co., 715
S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tenn. App. 1986). As this court stated in Hurley v. Tennessee
Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 887, 891 (Tenn. App. 1995):
When deciding a motion for directed verdict, both the trial court
and the reviewing court on appeal must look to all the evidence,
take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the
opponent of the motion, and allow all reasonable inferences in
favor of that party. The court must discard all countervailing
evidence, and if there is then any dispute as to any material fact, or
any doubt as to the conclusions to be drawn from the whole
evidence, the motion must be denied.
It is clear from this record that Plaintiff, from the time she submitted her
claim to Delta, to and through her testimony at trial below, stated the amount of
her loss as the cost, new, of her luggage and the contents thereof. This is borne
3
out first of all by the information presented on the claim form that she filed with
Delta, which she swore under oath to be “accurate, complete and true.” Her
oral testimony at trial below was to the same end:
Q . . .Now, you notice that on that form it has a cost and new,
and is that what you have written at the amount -- the new cost
of each item?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you fill that in?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know when they were purchased?
A I cannot say when each item was purchased, I couldn’t say
that.
In our opinion, the measure of damages sought to be utilized by Plaintiff is
not the law in this state to be applied to a loss occasioned such as this. The
proper measure of damages for the loss of personal property is the actual value
of the property to the owner at the time of the loss. Merritt v. Nationwide
Warehouse Co., Ltd., 605 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tenn. App. 1980), Cook & Nichols, Inc.
v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 480 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tenn. App. 1971), Clift v.
Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 315 S.W.2d 9, 44 Tenn. App. 483 (Tenn. App. 1958). This court
is of the opinion that of the three cased cited above, the court in Clift explains
with the greatest clarity the doctrine of 823 S.W.2d 171, 184 (Tenn. App.
1991). This the Plaintiff did not do. We find as a matter of law that Plaintiff failed
to properly prove her damages in accordance with law. Accordingly, the trial
court erred in failing to grant Delta’s motion for directed verdict. We therefore
reverse the judgment of the trial court in failing to grant a directed verdict for
Defendant in this case and dismiss plaintiff’s suit. Costs in this cause on appeal
are taxed to Plaintiff for which execution may issue if necessary.
_________________________________________
TOMLIN, Sr. J.
__________________________________________
5
CRAWFORD, P. J., W.S. (CONCURS)
__________________________________________
HIGHERS, J. (CONCURS)
6