Term: 2015
Docket: 13-1067
Obb Personenverkehr Ag v. Sachs
- Pro
13-1067 OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG V. SACHS DECISION BELOW: 737 F.3d 584 CERT. GRANTED 1/23/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq. ("FSIA"), broadly provides sovereign immunity to foreign states and their instrumentalities, subject to limited statutory exceptions. The first clause of the commercial activity exception provides, inter alia, that United States courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are "based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state." Id. § 1605(a)(2). The questions presented by this Petition are: 1. Whether, for purposes of determining when an entity is an "agent" of a "foreign state" under the first clause of the commercial activity exception of the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a) (2), the express definition of "agency" in the FSIA, the factors set forth in First National City Bank v. Banco para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba (Bancec), 462 U.S. 611 (1983), or common law principles of agency, control. 2. Whether, under the first clause of the commercial activity exception of the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), a tort claim for personal injuries suffered in connection with travel outside of the United States is "based upon" the allegedly tortious conduct occurring outside of the United States or the preceding sale of the ticket in the United States for the travel entirely outside the United States. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-15458
In the case of OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, Carol P. Sachs purchased a Eurail pass online from a Massachusetts-based travel agent for travel in Europe on OBB Personenverkehr AG (OBB), an Austrian state-owned railway company. While attempting to board an OBB train in Austria, she fell onto the tracks and suffered severe injuries when the moving train crushed her legs. She sued OBB in U.S federal court alleging negligence by OBB's employees caused her injuries. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against Sachs, stating that under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, foreign states are immune from jurisdiction of US courts unless certain exceptions apply - one being commercial activity carried out within United States by foreign state or act performed outside territory but causes direct effect inside it. However, they concluded that all elements of Sach’s claim occurred abroad and thus did not fall into FSIA exception as purchase was made through third party agency which cannot be attributed to actions taken by foreign entity itself; hence immunity applies.
In the dissenting opinion for OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "commercial activity" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) was too narrow. She contended that selling railway tickets should be considered a commercial activity regardless of whether it is done directly by a foreign state or through an agency. The justice also disagreed with the majority's view on how to determine if a claim is "based upon" commercial activity, arguing instead for a more flexible approach which considers all relevant factors rather than focusing solely on elements needed to prove legal claims. This broader perspective would allow U.S courts jurisdiction over cases like Sachs', where there are clear connections between alleged injuries and commercial activities carried out in America by foreign states or their agencies.
