Challenges to Treaty Interpretation

Case: Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd (1991, US) [pp. 64-74]

Parties: Plaintiff -
Defendant -

Procedural History:

Facts: An Eastern Airlines flight from Miami to Bahamas experienced some

trouble, and had to turn back to Miami. On the way back, there were further
complications, and an announcement made to passengers that plane would be ditched
in the Atlantic Ocean. After a period of descending flight without power, the
crew was actually able to restart the engine and land safely in Miami. 3 of the
passengers brought a suit claiming mental distress. The district court concluded
that mental distress alone was not compensable under Art 17 of the Warsaw
Convention (which set forth the conditions under which an international carrier
could be liable to passengers). Granted certiorari b/c of a French phrase "lesion
corporelle" which may be interpreted to mean purely emotional stress; now in the
court of appeals.

Issue: Whether Art. 17 of the Warsaw Convention allows for recovery for mental
or psychic injuries unaccompanied by physical injury or physical manifestations of
injury.

Holding: After granting certiorari, court of appeals reversed, holding that

Warsaw Convention did not allow recovery for purely emotional distress.

Reasoning: Warsaw Convention written in French, so they have to look at the

actual language. The text reads, "lesion corporelle," and the court finds that it
technically means "bodily injury," where taken more broadly can mean any personal
injury whatsoever. Because of the ambiguity, court then turns to the negotiating
history of the Warsaw convention, and to the fact that a remedy for emotional
injury was unknown in many jurisdictions at the time of the Warsaw convention to
conclude that "lesion corporelle" does not encompass mental injury.

Notes

• Writers of the Warsaw convention say that only the French text (original) is the
correct meaning.
• Sources used to interpret the treaty
○ Dictionary (to assess the plaintext)
§ French definitions and interpretations in French law
○ Historical context
§ We want to know the intent of the drafters. What did they intend to
consent to?
§ Purpose behind the drafting - what were states seeking to do? (also
part of the negotiating history)
□ They wanted airlines to prosper, so to expand the scope of
liability would not be in their intentions
○ Negotiating history
§ In the international realm, this may be looked at last (sometimes
also in the domestic realm)
○ Treatises & scholarly writings
○ How other countries had interpreted the text
§ Found that only one country (Israel) interpreted it to mean including
mental distress
• Vienna Convention - Art 31 (3) - general rules of interpretation
 3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the
interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which
establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;
(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations
between the parties.

• Art 32: Suppl means of interpretation

Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the
preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order
to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to
determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.