Jackie Pflug and Scott Pflug v. Egyptair Corporation, a New York Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the question of whether defendant is “carrier” under Article 17 was “obviously antecedent to an examination of whether the United States [was] one of the jurisdictions in which Article 28 ... allows the plaintiffs to proceed against the carrier.”
• interpreting Warsaw Convention to mean \that only the airline that actually transports the injured passenger can be held liable as 'the carrier' \
• interpreting Warsaw Convention to mean “that only the airline that actually transports the injured passenger can be held liable as ‘the carrier’”
• referring to Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention as the “forum- limiting provision of the Convention”
• dismissing Montreal Convention claim because plaintiff brought suit against Egyptair Corp., a subsidiary of Egytpair that did not operate the plane on which plaintiff was injured
• “Although the term ‘carrier’ is not defined in the [Warsaw] Convention, the manner in which it is employed . . . makes clear that the [Warsaw] Convention’s drafters were referring only to those airlines that actually transport passengers or baggage (‘actual carriers’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).