Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 24 F.3d 39
tl;dr:
Airline had warned passengers of falling luggage but taken no additional security measures. After falling luggage injured a passenger, the Court holds that a jury should decide whether the airline was negligent.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the case of Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a summary judgment in favor of United Airlines. This case concerned a passenger who was hurt by a briefcase that fell from an overhead compartment. It raised questions about whether United Airlines, as a common carrier, owed its passengers the highest level of care and attention, and if it failed to do so by not taking enough precautions to stop items from falling out of overhead storage.
This case is significant because it demonstrates the use of the common carrier doctrine, which holds carriers to a higher standard of care when they transport passengers or goods for payment. The case also shows how courts assess the likelihood of injury, the effort required to prevent it, and the practical aspects of the carrier's operations in deciding if a duty of care exists and if it has been breached.
The case has been referenced and followed in other cases that involve injuries caused by falling luggage or objects on various forms of transportation. It also reflects society's interest in ensuring the safety and well-being of travelers who entrust their lives to common carriers.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The legal case involves determining whether United Airlines fulfilled its duty of care towards its passengers by taking adequate measures to prevent injuries caused by falling objects from overhead compartments. The plaintiff, Billie Jean Andrews, claims that the injury was foreseeable and the airline failed to prevent it. The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, and the appellate court is reviewing the case de novo as a diversity action under California tort law. The parties agree that United Airlines is a common carrier and owes its passengers a duty of utmost care and vigilance. Ms. Andrews presented two witnesses to show that United Airlines did not fulfill its duty of care towards its passengers. The first witness testified that the airline had received reports of items falling from overhead bins, leading to the addition of a warning in its arrival announcements. However, the warning was deemed ineffective by the second witness, who suggested retrofitting overhead bins with baggage nets or requiring passengers to store only lightweight items overhead as additional measures to prevent the hazard.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.