# Narayanan Ex Rel. Narayanan v. British Airways

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 19, 2014 · 747 F.3d 1125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799095

## Case

- **Full name:** Susheela NARAYANAN, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Papanasam Narayanan, Deceased, on Behalf of the Heirs and Estate of Papanasam Narayanan; Tara Castro Narayanan; Ranjit Narayanan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRITISH AIRWAYS, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 19, 2014
- **Citations:** 747 F.3d 1125; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5173; 2014 WL 1057304
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pregerson
- **Judges:** Pregerson, Fletcher, Nguyen
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799095

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the plain language of a provision governing the timeliness of claims for death or bodily injury left “no room for flexibility as to the commencement of the limitations period”
- explaining that “any lingering confusion” about the text of Article 35(1) is “further alleviated by Article 29”
- noting that the Montreal Convention incorporated many of the Warsaw Convention’s substantive provisions

## Opinion text

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. The .rationale behind the Montreal Convention’s uncompromising two-year statute of limitations (and its $75,Q00 cap on damage awards) is to protect international, airline carriers to the detriment of passengers who suffer injuries caused by airline personnel.
The “primary purpose” of the original Warsaw Convention of 1929 was to “limit[ ] the liability of air carriers in order to foster the.growth of the fledgling comqier-cial aviation industry.” Eastern Airlines, *1133 Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 546 , 111 S.Ct. 1489 , 113 L.Ed.2d 569 (1991) (citations omitted). The Warsaw Convention was written when the airline industry was in its vulnerable infancy, and when air travel was considered risky.
The Montreal Convention, however, was adopted in 1999, after international air travel became a multi-billion dollar industry, and the risks of flying had decreased exponentially. In fact, Mr. Narayanan’s injury was not among the dangers typically associated with air travel (such as mechanical failures and pilot error), but was due solely to the negligence of British Airways’s employees. Yet the Montreal Convention, by retaining the Warsaw Convention’s rigid statute of limitations, continues to protect international airline carriers at the expense of its passengers, and bars Mr. Narayanan’s family from holding British Airways accountable for its misconduct.
Because of the unfair and unconscionable result in this case and perhaps others, I hope that the Montreal Convention will be revisited and revised to protect families like the Narayanans.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799095. Public record. Not legal advice.