| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Marjorie Zicherman, et al. v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting a provision of the Warsaw Convention, an international treaty governing liability for international air disasters. The plaintiffs were relatives of passengers who died in a 1983 plane crash and sought damages from Korean Air Lines (KAL) for their mental distress under Article 17 of the convention which makes airlines liable for "damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury." KAL argued that this did not include emotional distress claims without accompanying physical injuries. The court sided with KAL, ruling unanimously that damages for mental anguish alone are not recoverable under Article 17 unless they stem from a physical injury suffered by a passenger during an accident on an international flight. This interpretation is consistent with other courts' interpretations around the world and reflects concerns about limiting potential liability to ensure continued operation and growth within global aviation industry.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Marjorie Zicherman, etc., et al. v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., argued that the majority's interpretation of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention was incorrect and overly restrictive. The dissenters believed that mental distress damages should be recoverable under Article 17 if they are caused by a physical injury, even if not manifested physically themselves. They pointed out that such an interpretation would align with common law principles and international understanding at the time when the treaty was adopted, which recognized emotional distress as a form of harm resulting from bodily injuries. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for relying on post-ratification interpretations to support their view while ignoring pre-ratification understandings about what constituted "bodily injury". Finally, they expressed concern over how this ruling could limit compensation for victims who suffer severe psychological trauma due to aviation accidents.