FACTS: The passenger was injured in an airplane crash and filed an action against the airline. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment on a jury verdict of damages. The airline sought review arguing that the trial court improperly relied on it answers to interrogatories in granting summary judgment, and that the damage award was inappropriate because damages were limited by the Warsaw Convention.
The court affirmed the findings of the trial court. The court held that interrogatories and answers thereto could properly be considered when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, and the airlines' answers to the interrogatories showed undeniably that it was negligent. The court held that the Warsaw Convention did not limit appellees' liability. The court held that art. 25(1) did not limit liability in actions that were based upon willful misconduct and that there was ample evidence upon which the jury could base its finding that the airlines was guilty of willful misconduct.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the findings of the trial court, in appellee's action seeking damages resulting from a plane crash.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?