IRAC Method of Legal Writting, Essay Example

Newberger v. Pokrass

Issue

The issue in this case is whether the passenger of a plane can share responsibility with the pilot if the pilot operates the plane in a negligent manner.

Rules

This case involved Melvin Newberger and Willard Pokrass who were acquaintances and traveled together. Pokrass possessed an Apache (twin) aircraft. One day, Newberger, Pokrass and one of their friends, Barbara Seely decided to make a trip to Eagle River in Wisconsin where Pokrass owned a home in the neighborhoods of winter recreational activities. On their flight to the place, the whether conditions deteriorated forcing them to make a stop over at Oshkosh until the whether allowed them to proceed. They also made another stop over at Rhinelander to refuel as they waited for the whether to calm down. During the short flight to Rhinelander, Newberger who was seated next to Pokrass (pilot) fell asleep. Pokrass had also mentioned that he also felt sleepy. Just before the plane crashed and caught fire, Newberger woke up Pokrass warning him of the crash. Although Pokrass claimed that he was aware of the possible crash, he did nothing to control the aircraft. Both Pokrass and Seely perished in the fire after the plane crashed. Newberger who survived the crash was found 14 hours after the crash. Newberger sued the estate of Pokrass for the losses and injuries incurred.

Application and Analysis

The jury ruled on his favor and was compensated for the pain and suffering and also for the wages lost. The estate of Pokras appealed on the grounds that had Newberger not dozed off during the flight, then he could have assisted Pokrass in averting the accident. The Wisconsin Supreme Court however ruled out the appellant’s claim by noting that Pokrass’ negligent in numerous aspects could have led to the crash.

Conclusion

The court therefore affirmed the earlier ruling and Newberger was compensated for the lost wages, pain and suffering in the winter environment for the 14 hours before he was found. The issue in this case is whether the passenger of a plane can share responsibility with the pilot if the pilot operates the plane in a negligent manner.

Tremaroli vs. Delta Air Lines

Issue

The issue in this case is whether the carrier’s tariff restricts its liability or that of its agents for normal negligence leading to a loss to the passenger in the course of an x-ray or inspection process.

Rule of Law

The rule of law in this is applied in establishing whether where a posted tariff association with the ticket for carriage on an ordinary carrier limits liability for checked luggage or luggage finally delivered to a flight attendant for stowage in the lodge, but instead the passenger insists on maintaining the custody of the package. In this case Delta and its agent’s limitations its liability is instituted by the clear and unclear terms of the contract of ticket which included, by reference, the law as set forward in Delta’s validly filed tariff. Thus any bailment established by the screening of property being ferried into the sterile sector of an airport comes about by force and operations of law and comprises of a reliable or unjustified bailment for which an ordinary negligence standard applies.

Application and Analysis

The plaintiff or respondents claim that the carry-on bag supposedly lost in this case is not a baggage and thus the tariff and agreement of carriage were not relevant and inapplicable. Delta ticket stipulates that the passenger’s belongings be either the cargo section or the cabin of the aircraft before it is considered as a baggage. The description of baggage is any property or article possessed by the passengers and is acceptable for transportation within the contract stipulations and is checked in the cargo section or ferried in the cabin of the cargo.

Conclusion

In the case, the court found that a practical bailment arose by operations of law when the possessions were turned over to airline staff for x-ray screening. Both Tremaroli and the Fourth District in the case assumed the solidly established law stipulating that the language in tariffs should be interpreted in a manner devoid of unfairness, absurd or improbability of results. Though a baggage as described above is a passenger’s article acceptable for transportation and already checked in, the possessions n this case turned into a baggage as soon as they were transferred to the x-ray staff for screening.

Wallace vs. Korean Air Lines

Issue

The issue in this case is whether a sexual assault offence o a passenger on board a flight constitutes a risk characteristic of air travel and thus an accident.

Rule of Law

In this case, the plaintiff Wallace was sexually assaulted onboard the Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. (“KAL”) worldwide flight. She was attacked by a fellow passenger. She filed a suit on the basis of Warsaw Convention, which renders air carriers responsible for passenger injuries resulting from accidents. The suit was however rued out by the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York on the grounds that sexual assault was not classified as a risk characteristic of air travel and thus not an accident. In the fateful day, Wallace boarde the KAL flight 61 destined fro Los Angeles in California. Since it was a summer, Ms Wallace was clad in a T-shirt and a jean short with a belt. She fell asleep after her in-flight meal. Two men sat between Ms Wallace’s window seat and the gangway of the airliner’s cabin. Mr. Kwang Yong Park was seated near Ms Wallace. She had not spoken to Mr. Park before she slept. After three hours of flight, Ms. Wallace woke up in the darkened plane to realize that Mr. Park had unfastened her belt, unzipped and unfastened her jean shorts, and inserted his hands into her underpants to touch her. After she recovered the shock, she found a flight attendant and raised her claim. Another seat was re-assigned to her.

Application ad Analysis

In February 1998, Wallace sued KAL for the sexual assault by Park claiming that under the Warsaw Convention which governs all international ferrying of people goods or baggage by an airline. Warsaw Convention as modified by Montreal Agreement renders air carriers responsible for accidents sustained by passengers on board their planes. Her claim was dismissed by the district court on the grounds that sexual assault did not constitute a risk associated with travel and therefore not an accident. The court’s ruling that Mr. Park’s action did not constitute an accident ruled out the claim. Her claims of negligence by the airline were also ruled out on the basis of El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. V. Tseng, 525 U.S. 155.

Conclusion

Airport police arrested Mr. Park on arrival to Los Angeles. He pleaded  guilty in the U.S District Court for the Central District of California to the offence of making an unwelcome sexual advances with another person in infringement of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The court’s ruling that Mr. Park’s action did not constitute an accident ruled out the claim. Her claims of negligence by the airline were also ruled out on the basis of El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. V. Tseng, 525 U.S. 155.