Abdullah v. American Airlines, 181 F. 3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999) (Case Study Sample)

Abdullah v. American Airlines, 181 F. 3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999) Student name Course Assignment Date Case Name and Citation Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999) Relevant Facts The plaintiffs in this case acted as passengers on American Airlines flight 1473, originating in New York and heading to San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 28th August 1991. This sudden turbulence led to the injury of several passengers, among them some sustaining minor injuries. This was because they were not prepared for such a change in the force of gravity. It created a lot of turbulence that gave rise to a lawsuit against American Airlines. The plaintiffs argued that the pilot and flight crew were negligent in several ways, including the following. Some claimed that the crew did not reasonably endeavor to alter or change the course to avoid the storm as signs of the storm were evident. Secondly, they pointed out that the crew did not sufficiently inform the passengers of the possible intensity of the turbulence. Regarding this issue, the plaintiffs claimed they suffered injuries because of the negligence in communication and preparation. This was the airline's and its staff’s failure to retain the duty of care. Prior History At stage one of the legal battle of American Airlines Flight 1473, the District Court of Virgin Islands sided with the Plaintiffs and granted huge amounts of damages to them. The court ruled in the case of Abdullah v. American Airlines (1999) that the airline was negligent in handling the flight through turbulence, thereby causing some passengers to be injured. This negligence could be addressed to the failure of the pilot and the flight crew to sufficiently assess the weather conditions, change the flight course or correctly warn the passengers of the likelihood of turbulence that could have reduced the extent of the injuries. However, this victory of the plaintiffs was short-lived for the following reasons: In light of these considerations and a decision by American Airlines to reconsider the legal standards used in the decision-making process by the District Court, the latter changed its mind. Accordingly, it found it had acted wrongly by adopting the territorial common law standards of care to assess the airline’s behavior. As the court agreed with the airline’s reasons, it was stated that the Federal Aviation Act and the federal regulations, which are linked to the Act, should have been used as a guideline upon which the airline’s behavior would be assessed. These regulations preempt state or territorial laws concerning aviation safety regulations Abdullah v American Airlines 1999. Therefore, the court overruled the prior judgment, and a retrial was held. During this trial, it was agreed that federal rules were to be adopted in determining the airline company's liability. The plaintiffs dissented with this conclusion, and litigating to affirm the first award of damages for a new trial, the parties sued the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Abdullah v. American Airlines, 1999). Questions or Issues 1 Does federal law preempt territorial standards of care in aviation safety regulation? 2 Are state and territorial damage remedies preserved despite federal preemption of standards of care? The Court's Answer to the Questions 1 federal law preempts territorial and state standards of care in aviation safety. 2 Yes, state and territorial damage remedies are preserved even though federal law preempts standards of care. Reasoning Used by the Court to Justify Its Decision The Federal Aviation Act and associated federal regulations were found by the Third Circuit Court to set up a basic structure of aviation safety, thus abolishing any standards that could be set by states or territories (Abdullah v. American Airlines, 1999). This decision was based on the legal principle known as field preemption, which is based on the belief that federal laws pre-empt all other forms of governance where federal laws have provided comprehensive legislation on a given area of governance. This means that state or territorial laws are not only not prima...