Supreme Court of the United States

United Airlines, Petitioner

v.
Wang Li Bo

Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff Wang Li Bo was struck while on a United Airlines flight.
The attacker was a fellow passenger. He sued United Airlines to recover
for the injury under the Montreal Convention, which makes air carriers
liable for passenger injuries caused by an accident. The United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a summary
judgment for Wang in an efficient opinion. On appeal, the Second Circuit
affirmed the district courts judgment in a lean per curiam opinion.We
affirmed.

Background

The facts was undisputed.On the evening of March 31, 2012, Wang Li
Bo boarded a United Airlines flight bound for New York from Beijing.
Though he should sit in seat 10B, he sat in seat 9B, since he supposed it
didn't really matter. Therefore, Wang was seated next to Joseph Brennan.

During the course of the flight, a flight attendant, Aaron Cross, served
beverages and snacks. Brennan consumed four glasses in total. After the
fourth glass, Brennan sought a fifth, but was refused because flight
regulations prevented the airline from continuing to serve passengers
showing signs of advanced intoxication.

1
 After about 10 minutes, Cross left his post in the galley and entered
the lavatory. Seizing this opportunity, Brennan leaped out of his seat and
scurried over to the unattended and unsecured beverage cart. Brennan
pulled out two small bottles of the wine, drank them, and hurriedly
returned to his seat. Cross emerged from the lavatory, but did not notice
the theft.

Clearly drunk at this point, Brennan asked Wang whether he had seen
the football match between Inter Milan and AC Milan the night before.
Brennan, a fan of Inter Milan, referred that AC Milan is an inferior squad.
Wang, coincidentally a fan of AC Milan, couldnt help defending his
favorite team.

Provoked by this insult and belligerently inebriated, Brennan punched

Wang in the face, bloodying his nose, and grabbed Wangs neck with both
hands, strangling him for five seconds before Cross could pull Brennan
off and subdue him. Cross then directed Wang to an empty seat elsewhere
in the cabin. As Wang stood up to move to this new seat, he stumbled,
causing further injury.

Soon thereafter, Wang filed a complaint in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of New York against United Airlines
seeking to recover damages under Montreal Convention. That court
entered a summary judgment for Wang in an efficient opinion. The
district court noted without explanation that the common plain meaning
of what is an accident was dispositive to the courts holding. On appeal,
the Second Circuit affirmed.

Discussion

2
 A
Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention sets forth the circumstances
under which a carrier may be liable to passengers on international flights:
The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death
or wounding of a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so
sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the
operations of embarking or disembarking.

An air carrier is liable to a passenger under the terms of the Warsaw

Convention only if the passenger proves that an accident was the
proximate cause of his injury. Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392,
396(1985).

Although the Convention itself does not define an accident, the

Supreme Court addressed the meaning of that term in Air France v. Saks
that an accident under Article 17 is an unexpected or unusual event or
happening that is external to the passenger, and not the passenger's own
internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the
aircraft. The Court emphasized that the definition of accident should
be flexibly applied after assessment of all the circumstances surrounding
a passenger's injuries.

In Tsevas v. Delta Air Lines, despite of Stephania's warning to the

flight attendants of Bala's intoxication, the flight attendants continued to
serve Bala alcoholic beverages.However, in this case, Cross refused to
provide Brennan with another glass for his showing signs of advanced
intoxication.In addition, unlike the flight attendant in Tsevas case who
refused to move Stephania three times when she was sexually harassed,
Cross immediately subdued Brennan and relocated Wang to another

3
place.Thus,it seems that the plaitiffs injury has no relation with the
normal operation of flight.
Nevertheless, in the case at hand, Cross departed from his post his
post in the galley and entered the lavatory, left the beverage cart
unattended and unsecured which is taken advantage by Brennan who then
stole two small bottles of the Esser wine. As is stated in Saks, any injury
is the product of a chain of causes, and it is only required that the
passenger be able to prove that some link in the chain of causation was an
unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger. Applying this test,
the court concluded that the Crosss leaving his post without locking the
beverage cart was an unexpected event external to the passenger and thus
qualified as an accident under Article 17.

B
In Saks, the Court addressed whether a passenger's loss of hearing
proximately caused by normal operation of the aircraft's pressurization
systemwas an accident. The Court concluded that it was not,
because the injury was her own internal reaction to the normal
pressurization of the aircraft's cabin.In constrast to Saks, after seriously
injuried by his fellow passangers, Cross directed Wang to an empty seat
elsewhere in the cabin. As Wang stood up to move to this new seat, he
stumbled as he attempted to leave his window seat and move to this
empty seat, causing further injury. The flight attendant did not take any
possible measure to prevent the further injury.

In Padilla v.Olympic Airways, Judge Conner of this court held that an

airline was not liable under Article 17 for a passenger's injuries where the
passenger voluntarily consumed numerous alcoholic drinks and was
injured during a fall in the lavatory. The court concluded that the

4
plaintiff's injury was not caused by an external accident, but by
plaintiff's internal reaction to his voluntary intoxication.

The facts of the present case, however, are distinguishable from the
Padilla case .In present case,Wang was beaten and thus caused injuried by
a nearby co-passanger because the flight served alcoholic beverage to that
man and let him have a chance to be intoxicated.

Therefore, the reseating of Wang without any aid was an

unexpected and perhaps even unusual event and thus qualified as an
accident under Article 17, as Wang expected to receive some aids in his
course to the new seat and it is presumably common for the airline to aid
the injuried passanger to his seat.

C
Besides, Wallace test get the same conclusion from a different study
angle. Under the Wallace test, in order to qualify as an accident, the
event in question under Article 17 must arise from such risks that are
characteristic of air travel.

Obviously, in Saks, an airline presumably would be liable for all

passenger injuries, including those caused by co-passenger torts,
regardless of whether they arose from a characteristic risk of air
travel.Nevertheless, the Saks opinion does not make it clear whether an
event's relationship to the operation of an aircraft is relevant to whether
the event is an accident.

5
 According to Price, injury caused by a fistfight between two
passengers not an accident because a fracas is not a characteristic risk
of air travel nor may carriers easily guard against such a risk through the
employment of protective security measures.

Turning to the particular facts in this case, the characteristics of air

travel air travel increased Mr. Wang's vulnerability to Mr. Brennans
battery. When Mr. Wang took her seat next to the window on the United
Airlines flight, he was cramped into a confined space beside a man he did
not know, one of whom turned out to be a drunken attacter.
Although being strapped into one's seat next to a stranger is not so
much a characteristic of air travel as it is a characteristic of any form of
public transportation. However, in other forms of public transportation,
there is no free service of alcoholic beverages and it is rare that a
passanger will become intoxicated.

In sum, while a fight between passengers may not have a relation

to the operation of the aircraft, service from flight attendants, on the
other hand, is characteristic of air travel and does have such a relation
with the operation of the aircraft.

Conslusion
For the reasons set forth above, we therefore affirmed the ruling of
the Second Circuit Court.
SO ORDERED.

Justice KENNEDY, with whom Justice BREYER joined in part,

dissenting.

6
 Because of the following resons, I respectfully dissent.

In Tsevas, during the course of the flight, Delta flight attendants

served alcoholic beverages to Bala to the point where he became
intoxicated. Even after Stephaniawarning that Bala was intoxicated, the
flight attendants nonetheless continued to serve Bala alcoholic beverages.

However in the instant case, the flight attendant refused to continue to

serve Brennan because he showed some signs of advanced intoxication.
And then Brennan took the advantage of the attendants leaving his
post,stole two glass of red wine which eventually made him drunk.Its not
the flight attendants fault.

According to what the Supreme Court stated in Saks, when the injury
indisputablyresults from the passenger's own internal reaction to the
usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft, it has not been
caused by an accident and Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention cannot
apply.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim was outside the scope of the Warsaw
Convention for an incident where a passenger is injured in a fight with
another passenger bears no relation to the defendants operation of the
aircraft.

In addition,The further njury was her own internal reaction ,for if

he felt that he is so injuried that he could not move, he should informed
the flight attendant and ask for their help to prevent further injury.

7
 In Wallace case, Ms. Wallace took her seat in economy class on the
KAL flight, so she was cramped into a confined space beside two men
she did not know, one of whom turned out to be a sexual predator. In
present case, however, Wang and Brennan were traveling first-class
which enjoy enough room for them to pass and leave quickly.In addition,
some trains and cruise liner also provide passangers with free wines for
promotional purpose.

Thus, the confined space and free alcoholic beverage were nota risk
characteristic of air travel, and therefore was not an accident for
purposes of the Convention.

For the reason stated, I am constrained to withhold my assent from

the opinion and judgment of the majority.