In the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case, Air France v. Saks, the court ruled in favor of Air France by a unanimous decision. The plaintiff, Florence Saks was traveling on an international flight operated by Air France when she suffered hearing loss due to changes in cabin pressure during descent. She filed a lawsuit against the airline under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention which holds airlines liable for passenger injuries caused by accidents that occur while embarking or disembarking from aircrafts. However, it was determined that an "accident" under this article refers to an unexpected or unusual event external to passengers and not linked with normal operations of aircrafts such as changes in air pressure during flights which are considered routine occurrences rather than accidents. Therefore, since there wasn't any malfunctioning equipment or error made by crew members involved but merely regular operation procedures causing her injury; it didn't qualify as accident according to Warsaw convention's definition hence absolving Air France from liability.

In the dissenting opinion for AIR FRANCE v. SAKS, 1984, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's interpretation of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention was incorrect and overly restrictive. He believed that an "accident" under this article should be defined as any unexpected or unusual event or happening external to a passenger - not just those linked to operational aspects of flight. This would include injuries caused by cabin pressure changes during normal flights if they were unforeseen and atypical in relation to the passenger’s health condition. In his view, such an interpretation better aligned with both common usage and legal definitions of "accident", as well as being more consistent with previous court rulings on similar cases involving personal injury law.