Michelle Gilstrap v. United Air Lines, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the ACAA and its implementing regulations preempt state tort law standards of care “with respect to the circumstances under which airlines must provide assistance to passengers with disabilities in moving through the airport”
• noting that Sandoval “narrowed the framework for evaluating whether a statute implies a private cause of action”
• noting that the FAA reflects “a general congressional intent not to preempt state-law tort suits against airlines” (emphasis in original)
• stating that “the scope of field preemption extends . . . to the standard of care” while noting that “[l]ocal law still governs the other negligence elements (breach, causation, and damages), as well as the choice and availability of remedies” (cleaned up)
• explaining that the FAA and FARs “preempt any different or higher standard of care that may exist under [state] tort law” but that plaintiffs “may still rely on [state] tort law to prove the other elements of [their] claims—breach, causation, damages, and remedies”
• stating an airline cannot be held liable for failing to provide services beyond those required by the ACAA regulations when the ACAA regulations preempt state law standards of care

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).