Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

American Airlines, Inc. v. Ulen

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSummary Judgmentsummary judgmentRule 56Rule 33interrogatoriesanswers to interrogatoriesgenuine issue of material fact

Facts

Violet Ulen boarded American Airlines' plane in Washington for transportation to Mexico City, and the plane crashed near the summit of Glade Mountain in Virginia, causing her serious and permanent injuries. The Ulens sued, alleging negligent planning and operation of the flight; American denied negligence but answered 55 interrogatories in detail under oath. Those answers showed that the airline planned and was executing a flight at 4000 feet on a route where a Civil Air Regulation required flight at least 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within five miles of the intended course, and the plane crashed into terrain near 3910 feet or higher close to the airway. At trial on damages and the reserved Convention issue, the jury found for both plaintiffs.

Issue

Whether the district court could properly rely on the airline's sworn answers to interrogatories in granting summary judgment on liability despite denials in the pleadings. Also, whether the Warsaw Convention limited American's liability or whether its conduct constituted wilful misconduct that removed the Convention's liability cap.

Rule

On a motion for summary judgment, a court may consider interrogatories and sworn answers thereto, along with the pleadings and other materials, in deciding whether any genuine issue of material fact exists. Under Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, a carrier cannot invoke the Convention's liability limitation if the damage was caused by its wilful misconduct, which includes intentionally performing an act with knowledge that it is likely to result in passenger injury or acting with reckless and wanton disregard of probable consequences.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence suit in federal court in Denver, Nora Feld alleges that a delivery company, High Mesa Logistics, caused her injuries when one of its trucks struck a highway barrier and overturned. High Mesa's answer denies negligence, but in sworn answers to interrogatories it admits its dispatcher approved a route requiring the truck to pass under a bridge lower than the truck's loaded height, and the truck then hit that bridge and overturned.

If Nora moves for summary judgment on liability, how should the court treat High Mesa's interrogatory answers?

Explanation. The majority adopted the rule that interrogatories and sworn answers may be considered on summary judgment. A denial in the pleadings does not by itself preclude summary judgment if later sworn interrogatory answers conclusively establish negligence and proximate cause, leaving no genuine issue of material fact.