# Amicus Curiae Brief — Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0623%3A8

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1989
- **Citation:** 490 U.S. 122

## Text

d) Supreme Court, U.S.
J FILED

No. 87-1055 JUN 17 1948

In the Supreme Court of the

OCTOBER TERM, 1987

ELISA CHAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS
Vv.

KOREAN AIR LINES, LTD.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS

CHARLES FRIED
Solicitor General

JOHN R. BOLTON

Assistant Attorney General
DONALD B. AYER

Deputy Solicitor General
RICHARD J. LAZARUS

Assistant to the Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

(202) 633-2217

eee
ES TS OS TT LT: ART
( ,_cCHtHjHUH] UPC COU 0! 00 0! 000000 000°o Eee ee «“- — -- ~~

iy 3

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the limitation prescribed by the Warsaw Convention
on an air carrier’s liability applies only where notice of the ap-
plicability of the Convention’s liability rules is printed on an
airline passenger’s ticket in at least ten-point type, as required by
the Montreal Agreement.

a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. The Warsaw Convention and the Montreal
ec cc cas enkesencecses

1. Pre-Warsaw Convention Proceedings .........
ee EY GRINNED... ww cnc ecess.

3. Post-Warsaw Convention Proceedings and
the Montreal Agreement ...................
I

Tne ce ccc sccccccces
Argument:
The Warsaw Convention’s liability limitation is not
available to a carrier that fails to provide notice of the ap-
plicability of the Convention’s liability rules on a
passenger ticket in ten-point type, as required by the Mon-
Neen eee es cecccccceccccs
A. The Warsaw Convention denies the protection of the
Convention’s limitation on liability to an air carrier
that has failed to provide adequate notice on the
passenger ticket of the applicability of the Conven-
Cee en cs wecsccccn«
B. The Montreal Agreement’s ten-point type standard
supplies the measure for determining respondent
KAL’s compliance with the Warsaw Convention re-
quirement that it provide notice of the Convention's
liability rules on a passenger’s ticket .
Conclusion
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G

(111)

Co CON

lV y

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Treaties, statutes and regulation — Continued: Page
— Nar tre ret se rs fa eon
as eee go ek es Rid geek eb tae ak 16
Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985) ............... ey de a ph oe Se a I i4
12, 15, 23, 24 as oo a oa ose ixn ck od be EERE Sees 16
Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A. v. Lisi, 390 U.S. 455 SN Soe oe 60444 «tentials eotentuaewe eG 14, 16
(1968), aff'g 370 F.2d 508 (2d Cir. 1966) ............. 2, 21 Se EN Cy % 6 wheess b5kS on vkeeesey eacacreute 13, 14
Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. Sy ks Vuh go 60 dek VN Aedeseeceeroe 10, 13, 14,
TP NE 65 Sacu nat uniae cs Unesceuunaceusasecen: 15 15, 16, 19, 20
Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32 RPL Las do ene ye ee eau ile state dee ence wants 17
EE so bs nase bakes oh ae eee Cour ete bae eee 1} “paces Boo, .., CREE eee Ee TT TS ces 15
Ludecke v. Canadian Pac. Airlines, Ltd., 98 D.L.R.3d 52 AMS. S-16 . 0. cece cece eee en ence eeees: 4
(Can. 1979), rev’g 53 D.L.R.3d 636 (Que. C.A. anh, eee EEE POTEET CEE CET E TOP ER OTe : 14, 20
1974), affg in part and rev’g in part 12 Av. Cas. (CCH) PR ee ea wives cddhe CNR NCL eLGeuae 10, 14, 15, 18, 20
4 17,191 (Que. Super. Ct. 1971) .................... 24 pa eae ra er a er ener ie eer 15, 20
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., No. 86-495 (May 31, pric a ee ae ae ee ee ee ee ee ey re 15, ‘
TRE PE OC Ee PE TEPC ETT TEC ROC re 13 RAR o nisin tA ar) ans id edt) a a ede ae
Mertens v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 341 F.2d 851 (2d Cir.), “i Re an de dels antiguas sen :
cert. denied, 382 U.S. 816 (1965) ................... 21 ae Pisa as. eee 5.2
New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchant’s Bank, 47 Rael at Wart NYE Tne ih Yh) 1 10, 25
Sams GP ED PIII 6 oc coe ccccvcesvcccacecetes 22 RIGGS zeae aie 5
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United OSE SORE e en enemies eas ot ee
States District Court for the District of lowa, No. on
85-1695 (June 15,1987) dines 12-13, 15, 23 ss Ne aha aape tap ”
Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 28 Fed. Reg. 11775-11777 (1963) (14 C.F.R. 221.17S(a)) .. 23, 26
EE Sn wu kU de REA CR CASE RGM RL OUUS ch uSeL en. 23
TWA, Inc. vy. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243 Miscellaneous:
SE ae heen Ore Ee Rene eres Hee 5, 22, 27 D. Billyou, Air Law (2d ed. 1964)... .... Pipe a satel hte 3
Cha, The Air Carrier’s Liability to Passengers in Inter-
Treaties, statutes and regulation: national Law, 7? Air L. Rev. 25 (1936) ........ eer 3
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating 78 Cong. Rec. 11582 (1934) ................... a 5
to International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 129 Cong. Rec. (1983):
49 Stat. 3000, T.S. No. 876, 137 L.N.T.S. 11, reprinted We have reproduced in an appendix to this brief excerpts from the
documents relevant to the Warsaw Convention's drafting history (“travaux
preparatoires”). The documents are in French and translations (prepared with
the assistance of the State Department) are also reproduced. References are to
the appended English translations, followed by a parenthetical indicating
Where the original French language version (also appended) may be found.
The original documents, inc!ding some translations into English contem-
poraneously made, are located in the National Archives, in RG 59, Boxes $620
and $621.

4

(see id. at 27a (21a)). See generally M. Smirnoff, Le Comité In-
ternational Technique D’Experts Juridiques Aériens
(CI. T.E.J.A.) (1936). CITEJA established four commissions
to draft agreements for CITEJA’s plenary consideration (App.,
infra, 31a-33a (28a-31la)). The issues of the air waybill and the
liability of the air carrier towards shippers of goods and
passengers, among others, were assigned to the “Second Com-
mission” (id. at 32a-33a (29a-30a)).

At CITEJA’s second session, held in April 1927, the Second
Commission submitted a draft agreement concerning the form
of the waybill (App., infra, 53a-56a (40a-44a)), which CITEJA
approved, with revisions (id. at 57a (45a-46a); see id. at 47a-53a
(34a-40a) (CITEJA debates)). However, CITEJA also asked the
Second Commission to prepare a draft convention joining the
air waybill agreement with an agreement on the liability of air
carriers (id. at 58a (46a)). The Second Commission met in
March 1928, and prepared a new draft (id. at 92a-97a (72a-78a))
that included Articles dealing with passenger tickets and bag-
gage checks in a manner largely paralleling in substance the pro-
visions previously formulated for waybills (id. at 92a (72a-73a):
compare 94a-97a (75a-78a) with 55a-56a (42a-44a)). In its Third
Session, held in May 1928, CITEJA revised the Commission’s
draft and approved it for submission to member nations at a
conference to be held in Warsaw. See J.A. 181-193; App., infra,
79a-92a (59a-72a) (CITEJA debates); see also id. at 10Sa-107a
(98a-100a) (final CITEJA report).°®

2. The Warsaw Convention: During the Second Interna-
tional Conference on Private Aviation Law, held in Warsaw in
1929, the delegates adopted a revised version of CITEJA’s final
draft, now known as the Warsaw Convention. The chapter on
transportation documents establishes the requirements for
passenger tickets (art. 3 (App., infra, 8a(la)), baggage checks
(art. 4 (App., infra, 8a-9a(2a)), and air waybills (arts. 5-16
(App., infra, 9a-12a (2a-Sa)), including their legal effect and
operation, information (“particulars”) that must be contained in

* Model transportation documents were appended to CITEJA’s final report
(see App., infra, 102a-104a).

ae

5

each, and sanctions for violation of the Convention’s re-
quirements regarding the documents. Under Article 3(1), the
carrier must deliver a “ticket” to the passenger, which must con-
tain, inter alia, “[a] statement that the transportation is subject
to the rules relating to liability established by this convention”
(App., infra, 8a (1a)). The consequence, under Article 3(2), of a
“carrier accept{ing] a passenger without a passenger ticket hav-
ing been delivered” is that the carrier is “not * * * entitled to
avail himself of those provisions of th{e] convention which ex-
clude or limit his liability” (App., infra, 8a(la)).

The chapter on air carrier liability establishes, in Article 22,
limitations on air carrier liablity for any injury to passengers or
damage to checked baggage or to goods (App., infra, 12a-13a
(Sa-6a)). The liability limitation for passengers is 125,000 Poin-
caré francs (then approximately $8,300) (ibid.). Articles 20 and
21 provide the carrier with certain defenses to liability claims
(App., infra, 12a (Sa)), and Article 25 removes the liability
limitation “if the damage is caused * * * by wilful misconduct”
(App., infra, 14a (7a)). Finally, in the last chapter, Article 39
gives each nation the right formally to withdraw from the Con-
vention, effective six months after notice of denunciation
(App., infra, 14a (7a)).

The United States became a party to the Warsaw Convention
in 1934, following a voice vote in the Senate. See 78 Cong. Rec.
11582 (1934); see generally Lowenfeld & Mendelsohn, The
United States and the Warsaw Convention, 80 Harv. L. Rev.
497, 502 (1967). There were no congressional hearings, reports,
or debate on the question. See TWA, Inc. v. Franklin Mint
Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 273 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

3. Post-Warsaw Convention Proceedings and the Montreal
Agreement: The Hague Protocol of 1955 amended the Warsaw
Convention in several respects. See J.A. 245-277. The liability
limitation was approximately doubled to 250,000 Poincaré
francs (currently worth approximately $20,000), and certain air
carriers’ defenses were eliminated. In addition, the Conference
adopted the United States’ proposal to amend Article 3 in two
Significant respects. First, the notice requirement in Article 3(1)

6

was revised to demand that the ticket include a statement that
the Warsaw Convention “may be applicable” if the passenger’s
journey involves travel in more than one country and that the
Convention “in most cases limits the liability of carriers.” Sec-
ond, Article 3(2) was amended to provide that “if * * * the
passenger embarks without a passenger ticket having been
delivered, or if the ticket does not include the notice required by
* * * this Article, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself
of the [Convention’s liability limitation].” See J.A. 252-255; see
also id. at 215, 230. The United States, however, declined to
ratify the Hague Protocol because it found insufficient the in-
crease in liability limits for claims involving death or bodily in-
jury. Lowenfeld & Mendelsohn, supra, 80 Harv. L. Rev. at
510-516, 532-546, 564.

On November 15, 1965, the United States gave notice of its
intention to denounce the Warsaw Convention, and thus to
withdraw effective in six months, pursuant to Article 39 of the
Convention. At the same time, the United States made clear
that it would rescind the notice of denunciation if the contrac-
ting nations appeared likely to agree to increase the liability
limit to approximately $100,000, and the carriers agreed, in the
interim, to increase the liability limit to $75,000. See J.A. 278.
On the eve of the planned denunciation, the carriers agreed to
the $75,000 liability limitation and to other United States
demands. This Agreement, known as the Montreal Agreement
of 1966 (Pet. App. B4-B6), was approved by the Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB) on May 13, 1966 (see J.A. 285-288;
31 Fed. Reg. 7302 (1966)), and the United States withdrew its
proposed denunciation of the Convention in light of the Agree-
ment (J.A. 281-284; see Lowenfeld & Mendelsohn, supra, 80
Harv. L. Rev. at 586-596).

Under the Montreal Agreement, virtually al! air carriers con-
ducting international flights into or out of the United States
agreed to include in their tariffs a special contract under which
the liability limit for death or bodily injury would be raised
voluntarily to $75,000 inclusive of legal fees and costs (or
$58,000 exclusive of legal fees and costs) for each passenger

a pe

(Pet. App. B4). The carriers further agreed to provide in their
tariffs that they would waive their right to assert the due care
defense provided by Article 20(1) of the Convention (Pet. App.
B4). Finally, the carriers agreed “at the time of delivery of the
ticket, [to] furnish to each passenger whose transportation is
governed by the [Warsaw Convention] * * *” a notice, set out
verbatim in the Agreement, “printed in type at least as large as
10 point modern type” advising the international passenger that
the Warsaw Convention’s liability limitations may apply to the
journey (Pet. App. BS).’

’ Efforts to revise the Warsaw Convention have continued. The United
States and many other nations have signed the Guatemala City Protocol of
1971 and the Montreal Protocols Nos. 3 and 4 of 1975, but neither of these
amended versions of the Warsaw Convention has been ratified by the United
States or entered into force. The Guatemala City Protocol amends the Con-
vention by raising the liability limit to approximately $100,000 per passenger.
It also makes significant changes in the rules governing liability. See generally,
Mankiewicz, Warsaw Convention: The 1971 Protocol of Guatemala City, 20
Am. J. Comp. L. 335 (1972). The Protocol eliminates the due care defense for
passenger death or injury, deletes the provisions of the original Warsaw Con-
vention requiring delivery of a ticket and notice of the liability limitation, and,
unlike the Convention, does not provide for unlimited liability where the car-
rier engages in wilful misconduct or fails to deliver a ticket to the passenger.
The Guatemala City Protocol, however, retains in modified form the carrier’s
right to plead contributory negligence. Montreal Protocol No. 3, in relevant
part, incorporates the preceding amendments made by the Guatemala City
Protocol, but expresses the $100,000 liability limitation in terms of $100,000
Special Drawing Rights (currently worth approximately $136,000). See S. Ex-
ec. Rep. 97-45, 97th Cong., Ist Sess. 4 (1981); S. Exec. Rep. 98-1, 98th Cong.,
Ist Sess. 4 (1983). Montreal Protocol No. 4 amends and updates the cargo pro-
visons of the Convention as modified by the Hague Protocol. See generally,
G. Miller, Liability in International Air Transportation 37-49 (1977).

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations previously recommended ap-
proval of Montreal Protocols Nos. 3 and 4, S. Exec. Rep. 98-1, supra, at 5, 6,
coupled with a domestic plan to supplement the Convention's liability limita-
tions. On March 8, 1983, the Senate, however, voted 50-42 to approve the pro-
tocols, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed for approval. 129 Cong.
Rec. 4241-425! (1983); see Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. at 403. Following
that vote, a motion to reconsider was entered (129 Cong. Rec. 4251 (1983)),
but the Senate has not yet reconsidered the question. The Department of
Transportation and several other agencies are currently formulating a new

B. Proceedings Below

On September |, 1983, Korean Air Lines (KAL) Flight 007, a
commercial flight, departed from Kennedy Airport for Seoul,
South Korea. The airplane strayed into the Soviet Union’s
airspace, where it was destroyed by a missile launched by a
Soviet military aircraft. All the passengers and crew members
were killed. Petitioners, representatives of passengers who were
killed, brought damage actions against respondent KAL in
several federal district courts, including the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York, Eastern District of Michigan,
District of Massachusetts, and District of Columbia. The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these ac-
tions to the District Court for the District of Columbia for
pretrial proceedings.

Petitioners filed with the district court a motion for partial
summary judgment in which they sought a declaration that
respondent KAL could not rely on the Warsaw Convention’s
liability limitation, as modified by the Montreal Agreement,
because the notice of that limitation appeared on the passengers’
tickets in eight-point rather than ten-point type (Pet. App.
A13). The district court denied petitioner’s motion, ruling that
the liability limitation applied.

According to the court, “defects in the physical ticket are not
to interfere with the enforceability of the liability rules” (Pet.
App. A3l). “Indeed,” the court noted, “inadequate notice
through the statement could be considered an ‘irregularity” or
defect in the passenger ticket which ‘shall not affect the ex-
istence or the validity of the contract of transportation, which
shall nonetheless be subject to the rules of this convention’ ”
(ibid. (quoting Article 3(2)); Pet. App. B1). “(T]he quid pro quo
for the limitation is, not notice, but liability without fault. * * *
There is no evidence that the treaty drafters and signatories in-
tended ‘adequate notice’ to affect the operation of the treaty
limitation” (id. at A34).

supplemental compensation plan for consideration by the Senate, which
would provide for unlimited per passenger recoveries for economic loss.

a i, a i mn

9

The district court likewise rejected petitioners’ claim that the
Montreal Agreement was intended to lift the liability limitation
if the air carrier failed to include notice of that limitation on the
passenger ticket in at least ten-point type (Pet. App A37-A40).
According to the court (id. at A38), the Montreal Agreement
“did not alter the quid pro quo by linking Articles 22 and 20
with Article 3.” “Nothing in the debate or dissatisfaction with
the limitation which led to the Montreal Agreement confirms
the contention that ‘adequate notice’ was an issue” (Pet. App.
A37). In any event, the Court found (id. at A39) a “basic flaw”
in petitioner’s argument to be “the assumption that the Mon-
treal Agreement can operate as an amendment to the Warsaw
Convention; it cannot.” “Under the [Warsaw] Convention’s
provisions, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher
limit of liability. While the limit may be raised, nothing in the
‘special contract’ provision [of the Convention] allows it to be
completely removed” (ibid.). The court noted, however, that
“(were [it] faced with a clear, political decision to avoid the
treaty limitation where there has not been ‘adequate notice,’
however defined, or were it faced with an express waiver, * * *
then a different decision would be possible” (ibid.).

2. The court of appeals affirmed (Pet. App. Al-Al1). The
court “adopt{ed] as [its] opinion the comprehensive [opinion] of
the district court,” which the court of appeals reprinted as an
appendix to its own decision (id. at A4, Al2-A42).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Respondent KAL is not entitled to rely on the liability limita-
tions of the Warsaw Convention because its passenger ticket
faiied to provide the required notice of the applicability of the
Convention’s liability rules in at least ten-point type, as required
by the Montreal Agreement.

1. First, Article 3(1) of the Warsaw Convention explicitly
requires the air carrier to deliver to the passenger a “ticket” that
contains notice of the applicability of the Convention’s liability
rules. Article 3(2) states that a carrier who accepts a passenger
without a “ticket” having been delivered may not invoke the

CS)7 cll

10

Convention’s provisions limiting liability. Similar sanction pro-
visions in other Articles of the Convention add that the liability
limitation may be lost for the additional reason of failure to
comply with specified particulars — including the notice require-
ment. Contrary to the court of appeals’ opinion, a comparison
of Article 3(2) to these parallel provisions in other Articles does
not unambiguously establish that the Convention intended to
leave the liability limitation in effect where a carrier delivers a
ticket that lacks the required notice. The language may also be
read to include the notice of limited liability as an essential ele-
ment of any “ticket” whose delivery is necessary if the liability
limits are to remain in effect.

The history of the Convention’s preparation and adoption in-
dicates that the drafters intended that the same loss of liability
limitation was to result from failure to comply with the notice
requirement in the case of passenger tickets, as in the case of
baggage checks and air waybills. The differences in language ap-
pearing in Article 3(2), as contrasted with Articles 4(2) and 9,
are explicable not by any intention to withhold the sanction for
failure to give notice under Article 3, but rather as the unhappy
consequence of two amendments that worked together to create
an implication that neither of them intended. Indeed, one of the
amendments was intended to make it clearer that the sanction
would apply in that very circumstance. Hence, the negative im-
plication upon which respondent KAL relies does not accurately
reflect the parties’ intent.

2. This Court need not step outside its limited judicial func-
tion to rule that the Montreal Agreement’s ten-point type stand-
ard supplies the measure for determining compliance with the
Warsaw Convention’s notice requirement. Respondent is a par-
ty to the Montreal Agreement, which is a commitment among
carriers to offer to passengers an increased ceiling on
liability — as expressly contemplated in Article 22(1) of the Con-
vention —and to set forth in an agreed upon form a particular
notification of that limitation. Contrary to the opinion below,
there is no bar to the air carriers’ agreeing to comply with the
Convention’s notice requirement in a particular manner. Cer-

1]

tainly, the carriers are hard pressed to argue that a violation of
the Montreal Agreement’s notice standard is unrelated to the re-
quirements of the Warsaw Convention, in implementation of
which the Montreal Agreement was executed.

In any event, the ten-point type standard provides a clear,
well-settled standard that should be applied as the judicial
measure for determining compliance with the Warsaw Conven-
tion’s notice requirement. The ten-point standard reflects the
longstanding judgment of the expert federal agency (formerly
the Civil Aeronautics Board and currently the Department of
Transportation) concerning the size of type providing sufficient
notice of the liability rules. Such a clear and definite standard is
also far more desirable for all concerned than respondent’s pro-
posal that courts engage in ad hoc factual inquiries into the ade-
quacy of notice in individual cases.

ARGUMENT

THE WARSAW CONVENTION'S LIABILITY LIMITATION
IS NOT AVAILABLE TO A CARRIER THAT FAILS TO
PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
CONVENTION'S LIABILITY RULES ON A PASSENGER
TICKET IN TEN-POINT TYPE, AS REQUIRED BY THE
MONTREAL AGREEMENT

“When a legal distinction is determined, as no one doubts that
it may be, between night and day, childhood and maturity, or
any other extremes, a point has to be fixed or a line has to be
drawn, or gradually picked out by successive decisions, to mark
where the change takes place.” Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v.
Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 41 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting). So it
is in this case. To many, the Montreal Agreement’s requirement
that carriers provide notice of the applicability of the Warsaw
Convention’s liability rules on a passenger ticket in at least ten-
point type may seem arbitrary. Certainly, “[iJt might as well or
nearly as well be a little more to one side or the other” (ibid.).
Yet the United States withdrew its notice of denunciation of the
Warsaw Convention only upon extracting from air carriers their
agreement to adhere to that very requirement. Hence, the im-

12

portance of the ten-point type standard to the United States
cannot be gainsaid.

Airline carriers may not, moreover, fairly argue that it is un-
duly harsh to deprive them of the Convention’s liability limita-
tion when they fail to provide passengers with the required
notice in ten-point type on the ticket. For over 20 years, the air
carriers have had notice of the ten-point type standard and have
agreed to its strict adherence. That standard, once declared,
hardly seems the sort to make ready compliance burdensome.
Indeed, in many respects, the ten-point type standard would
seem far preferable to air carriers than the more vague standard
that notice must be “adequate.”

For whatever reason, however, some carriers, such as
respondent KAL in this case, seem unable or unwilling to
achieve compliance with the clear standard and thus would have
the Court, like the court of appeals, apply its own notion of
what constitutes “adequate notice” (Pet. App. A37). We believe
their invitation should be declined and the Montreal
Agreement’s ten-point standard strictly honored. We believe,
moreover, that the sanction supplied by the Warsaw Conven-
tion, and furthered by the Montreal Agreement, for failure to
include the requisite notice should apply where the ten-point
type standard has not been met. Any seeming inequity in ap-
plication of that sanction is, particularly at this late date, not
unduly harsh; for the sanction is self-inflicted.

A. The Warsaw Convention Denies the Protection of the Con-
vention’s Limitation on Liability to an Air Carrier That Has
Failed to Provide Adequate Notice on the Passenger Ticket
of the Applicablity of the Convention's Liability Rules

1. The threshold question presented by this case concerns
what condition, if any, Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention im-
poses on an air carrier in order to avail itself of the Convention’s
limitation on liability, which may work a considerable hardship
on passenger victims of airline accidents. “The analysis must
begin * * * with the text of the treaty and the context in which
the written words are used.” Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392,
396-397 (1985) (citation omitted); Societe Nationale Industrielle

13

Aerospatiale v. United States District Court for the District of
lowa, No. 85-1695 (June 15, 1987), slip op. 10. In this case, the
relevant treaty language is ultimately ambiguous because it ad-
mits of two different, and conflicting, interpretations. Article
3(1) provides that “the carrier must deliver a passenger ticket
which shall contain the following particulars,” and lists among
those particulars “[a] statement that the transportation is sub-
ject to the rules relating to liability established by this conven-
tion” (App., infra, 8a (la)). Article 3(2) then provides that “if
the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having
been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those
provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability”
(App., infra, 8a (la)). A fair reading of these provisions, taken
together, is that an air carrier has not “delivered” a “ticket”
within the meaning of Article 3(2), unless it contains the re-
quired “statement” of limited liability, and thus, in that cir-
cumstance, may not avail himself of the liability limitation.
Viewed “as a whole” (K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., No.
86-495 (May 31, 1988), slip op. 7-8), however, the language and
structure of the Convention introduces an ambiguity into what
would otherwise have seemed the plainly correct reading of Ar-
ticle 3. Specifically, a comparison of the language and structure
of Article 3 and Article 4 (concerning baggage checks) suggests a
different construction. Both Articles list in their respective first
paragraphs those “particulars” that must be included on a ticket
(art. 3) or baggage check (art. 4) (App., infra, 8a-9a (la-2a)). In
virtually identical language, moreover, both include the notice
requirement as such a required “particular” (arts. 3(1)(e) and
4(1)(h)). Both Articles, in their second paragraphs (arts. 3(2)
and 4(2)), also impose the same sanction of the air carrier’s loss
of the protection of the Convention’s liability limitation.
Articles 3 and 4 differ sharply, however, in their respective
descriptions of the circumstances triggering that sanction. Both
Articles explicitly make the liability limitation inapplicable
where the carrier fails to deliver the relevant document — a ticket
for passengers (art. 3(2)), or a baggage check for baggage (art.
4(2)). Unlike Article 3, however, Article 4 is also explicit in im-

14

posing that sanction whee “the baggage check does not contain
the particulars set out at fart. 4(1)}(d), (f), and (h) above”
(App., infra, 9a (2a)). Article 4(1)(h) is the section requiring that
the baggage check give notice of the limitation on liability.

Article 4(2) thus appears to distinguish between not delivering
a baggage check at all, and delivering a baggage check that fails
to contain all of the particulars. 't denies the protection of the
liability limitation only for the omission of certain explicitly
noted particulars. Article 9 does the same for waybills.* Par-
ticularly because both Articles 4(2) and 9 single out the notice
requirement as triggering the sanction, the absence of a com-
parable clause in Article 3(2) provides support for respondent’s
view that the parties to the Convention did not intend to deny
the limitation on liability based on any omission of particulars,
including the notice of liability limitation.

The contrasting language in Articles 4 and 9 undercuts the ap-
parent meaning of Article 3, read in isolation, but it does not
compel acceptance of respondent’s contrary reading.® It rather

* A comparison of the language contained in Article 3 and Articles 8 and 9,
concerning waybills, is to the same effect. Article 8 lists those “particulars”
that must be in an waybill, including a statement of the Convention’s liability
rules (see App., infra, 10a-lla (4a)). Article 9, like Article 4(2), specifically
isolates that particular, among several others, violations of which deprive the
air carrier of the Convention's liability limitation (see App., infra, lla-12a
(Sa)).

* Nor, contrary to the lower courts’ decision (Pet. App. A31), is their
reading mandated by Article 3(2)’s provision that “[t}he absence, irregularity,
or loss of the passenger ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of
the contract of transportation, which shall none the less be subject to the rules
of this convention” (Pet. App. B1). That provision simply makes explicit that
the rules of the Warsaw Convention, including its provisions for loss of liabili-
ty limitation in certain instances, apply notwithstanding “the absence, ir-
regularity, or loss of the passenger ticket.” The Reporter of CITEJA’s Second
Commission made just this point on numerous Occasions in responding to the
concern, expressed by some delegates, that parties might, just as the lower
courts did in this case, misread the phrase as somehow contradicting the Con-
vention’s sanction provision. See App., infra, 47a-49a (34a-37a), 52a-S3a
(39a-40a), 88a-9la (69a-71la); see also id. at 22a (16a), 23a (17a), 25a (19a)
(original language). Indeed, this very concern prompted the CITEJA to
amend the sanction provisions concerned with passenger tickets (art. 3(2)),

1S

creates a dilemma between the most plausible reading of Article
3, which gives force to its requirement that a “ticket” be
delivered, and the structure of Articles 4 and 9, which suggests
that an explicit withdrawal of the liability limitation would have
been set forth if intended. In such circumstances, “ ‘to ascertain
[Article 3(2)’s] meaning we may look beyond the written words
to the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical
construction adopted by the parties’ ” (Air France v. Saks, 470
U.S. at 396 (quoting Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United
States, 318 U.S 423, 431-432 (1943); Societe Nationale In-
dustrielle Aerospatiale vy. United States District Court of the
Southern District of lowa, slip op. 10-11)).

2. “{T]he ‘travaux preparatories’ of the Warsaw Convention
are published and generally available to litigants [and] courts
frequently refer to these materials to resolve ambiguities in the
text.” Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. at 400 (citations omitted).
They show that, virtually from the outset, the persons responsi-
ble for negotiating and drafting the treaty intended that the
limitation of liability would not be available if notice of that
limitation were not included in a passenger ticket, baggage
check, or waybill. There is no compelling evidence that the trea-
ty drafters at any time decided to distinguish, in that regard,
passenger tickets from baggage checks and waybills.

a. The treaty drafters had early on recognized the need for
sanctions for non-compliance with provisions of the Conven-
tion (App., infra, 22a-23a (16a)). They adopted the “eminently
practical” scheme of depriving a carrier of the benefits of the
Convention after determining that they could not rely on each

baggage checks (art. 4(2)), and waybills (art. 18 (then numbered 17), to
eliminate any possible contention that a carrier could avoid any sanction simp-
ly by not issuing any ticket in the first instance. See App., infra, Yla-92a
(7la-72a); see also id. at 57a (4$a-46a). Finally, both Articles 4(2) and (2)
refute the lower courts’ suggestion that the omission of a particular trom a
travel document is simply an “irregularity,” which does not trigger the sanction
provision. Those Articles contain the identical clause, yet the Convention ex-
pressly denies the liability limitation where an air carrier fails to set forth on
the baggage check or waybill specified particulars. See App., infra, 8a-Ya (2a),
Ya-10a (la-3a), Lla-l2a (Sa).

16

nation to adopt the necessary domestic penal legislation (/d. at
47a-49a (35a-37a), 54a-55a (42a)). The withdrawal of the liabili-
ty limitation as a sanction for failure to provide notice of that
limitation was first advanced in the draft proposal regarding
waybills prepared by CITEJA’s Second Commission (id. at
§6a-57a (44a-45a); see id. at Sla-S2a (38a-39a) (CITEJA
debate)).

The same scheme was subsequently applied both to passenger
tickets and baggage checks in the draft agreement of the Second
Commission concerning both the waybill and the air carrier’s
liability towards shippers and passengers (App., infra, 92a
(72a-73a), 94a-96a (75a-77a)). The requirement of a notice of
limited liability was set forth, in Articles 3 and 4 of the new
draft, as a separate paragraph in the same Article setting forth
the required particulars.'® In that respect those Articles differed
from the waybill provision, where it was set forth in a separate
Article from the particulars themselves (App., infra, 97a (78a)).

The sanction provision in Articles 3 and 4 of the Second
Commission draft stated that an air carrier that failed to draw
up a ticket or baggage check containing the listed particulars
could not invoke the Convention’s liability limitation (App., in-
fra, 95a (86a), 96a (77a)). Article 4(2) specifically referred to
particulars set forth at 4(1)(a)-(d) as triggering the sanctions
(App., infra, 96a (77a)). It did not refer to the particulars then
listed in Article 4(1)(e) and (f), which were unique to baggage
checks. Article 3(2), which contained the same initial four par-
ticulars as Article 4, at Article 3(1)(a)-(d), but did not contain
particulars (e) and (f), simply provided that “if the carrier did
not establish a passenger ticket containing the particulars in-
dicated above, * * * the carrier would not be entitled to rely on
the provisions of the Convention which exclude or limit his
responsibility” (App., infra, 95a (76a)). In neither Article 3 nor
4 did the sanction provision refer explicitly to the required state-

‘© The relevant sentence provided that “[t}he passenger ticket must also con-
tain a statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liabili-
ty established by this Convention” (App., i/ra, 95a (7Sa); see id. at 96a (76a)
(art. 4)).

17

ment of limited liability, which was set out in the Article with,
but separate from, the list of particulars. However, the accom-
panying CITEJA working papers evidence that the drafters in-
tended the limitation of liability to be inapplicable when the car-
rier failed to give the required notice on either a passenger ticket
or baggage check. The Second Commission's Report states that
the “same” sanction shall apply as under the Articles dealing
with waybills for the transportation of goods, which expressly
provide that a carrier cannot invoke the liability limitation in the
absence of the required notice on the waybill regarding those
liability rules (App., infra, 88a (68a), 97a (78a); see also id. at
§6a-57a (43a-45a) (prior version)). See id. at 92a (73a) (“[T]he
sanction for transporting passengers without regular tickets is
the same as that for transportation of baggage and goods.”); see
also ibid. (“The remark concerning passengers applies to their
baggage as well: a special article covers the baggage check.”).
b. The same basic treaty structure persisted until the time
that CITEJA approved of its final draft agreement for submis-
sion to the Warsaw Convention. While some changes were
made in the language of the relevant provisions during
CITEJA’s final drafting sessions (and resulted in frequent
renumbering of Articles), there is no suggestion in CITEJA’s
working papers that any of those changes were intended to
modify the operation of the sanction clause.'' None of the
changes made —nor, indeed, any of those proposed — sought to

'! The principal modification adopted in the CITEJA final draft, moreover,
applied to passenger tickets, baggage checks, and air waybills alike, and was
intended to guard against an unduly narrow reading of the sanction’s scope.
The amendment addressed a Brazilian delegate’s concern that the statement in
Article § (repeated in Articles 3 and 4)—that the absence, irregularity, or loss
of a document did not affect the existence or validity of the contract — might
be misconstrued to mean that an air carrier would lose the liability limitation
only if there was a defect in a document and not when there was no document
at all (App., ifra, 88a-91a (68a-71a)). Despite the Reporter's assurances that
no clarifying language was needed, the delegates voted to eliminate any posst-
ble ambiguity by redrafting Article 18 (and subsequently the corresponding
phrases in Article 3 and 4) to provide that the carrier lost the liability limitation
when the carrier failed to draw up a ticket, or when a ticket containing the cer-
tain particulars was not drawn up (App., mfra, 90a-92a (70a-72a) (LI, for

18

single out passenger tickets for different treatment. Nor were
any directed to the notice requirements.'? CITEJA’s final report
to the Convention delegates stressed, like its earlier reports, that
the same sanctions applied equally to passenger tickets, baggage
checks, and waybills (App., infra, 107a (101a) (“[T]he sanction
given for the transportation of passengers without a ticket or
with a ticket that does not conform to the Convention is the
same as that given for the transportation of baggage and that of
merchandise.”)).

c. The contrasting language in Articles 3, 4, and 9, upon
which respondent KAL principally relies, is the product of two
amendments adopted at the Warsaw Conference itself. An ex-
amination of the circumstances and objectives of both of those
amendments suggests that any implication derived from a com-
parison of the language of Article 3 with the language and struc-
ture of Articles 4 and 9—that the parties to the Convention in-
tended a different result under Article 3—does not accurately
reflect the parties’ true intent. Neither amendment purported to
distinguish between Articles 3 and 4. Nor was either prompted
by an intent to allow the liability limitation to remain in effect
where notice of it had not been provided. Indeed, one of the
amendments was proposed to make it clear that the limitation
would be inapplicable under Article 3 if the carrier failed to
comply with the notice requirement.

To be sure, the first amendment, which was proposed by the
Greek delegation, was intended to limit the circumstances under
which the liability limitation would be inapplicable under

international transportation, the carrier accepts goods without a waybiil hav-
‘sg been made out, or if the waybill does not contain all of the particulars set
out in Articles 9(a) to (g) inclusive, etc. * * *.”)). See note 9, supra.

'2 Proposals to weaken the sanction provisions were offered during
preparation of CITEJA’s final draft, by a Greek delegate and were rejected as
they had been once before (App., infra, 5la-S3a (38a-40a), 82a-83a (62a-64a)).
Those proposals were exclusively concerned with denying the limitation of
liability for defects in setting forth the particulars listed in Article 3’s first
paragraph. These unsuccessful proposals therefore did not even suggest that
the sanction was inappropriate for failure to satisfy the notice requirement,
which was then set forth separately from the list of particulars.

19

Articles 3 and 4 (App., infra, 116a-118a (11la-112a)). But that
proposal rendered the sanction inapplicable only as to failures
to satisfy the particulars then listed in Article 3(1), some of
which were also listed in Article 4(1). Significantly, at the time
the Greek delegation offered its amendment, CITEJA’s final
draft was under consideration, which did not list the notice re-
quirement as one of the “particulars” in Article 3(1) or Article
4(1), but which rather set it forth separately (see J.A. 182, 183;
see also App., infra, 114a (109a) (amendments submitted prior
to Conference)).

As explained by the Greek @élegation, an amendment was
necessary because the sanctiony(loss of liability limitation) was
too severe where an error in one of the listed particulars was the
result of the negligence of an employee of the carrier (App., in-
fra, \16a-117a (11la-112a); see also id. at Sla-53a (38a-40a), °
82a-83a (62a-64a) (prior unsuccessful efforts)). The illustrations
offered by the Greek delegation never referred to the notice re-
quirement (/bid.).'> The Conference delegates agreed with the
Greek concerns and, accordingly, they omitted altogether the
clause in Article 3(2)’s sanction provision that applied the sanc-
tion where a carrier delivered a ticket not containing one of the
listed particulars (J.A. 147-148); and in Article 4(2), the
delegates revised the clause to remove those same particulars
from the list of particulars that triggered the sanction (J.A.
154). However, at the time of the delegates’ consideration of the
amendment (see id. at 153-154), Article 4 contained other par-
ticulars not set forth in Article 3, and as to which the delegates
wanted the sanction to apply. Thus Article 4— but not Article
3—continued to make references to the withdrawal of the
liability limitation for failure to comply with certain particulars.

At the same time, the Japanese delegation successfully pro-
posed a second amendment to Articles 3 and 4, which was in-
tended to make it clear that the liability limitation would be in-
applicable where a carrier failed to include the required notice

'S The Greek delegation referred to negligent omissions in “the place of ts-
suance,” “point of departure,” “[carrier] name and address,” or “an in-
termediate stop point” (App., infra, |l6a (11 1a)).

20

on the passenger ticket or the baggage check (App., infra, 118a
(1i3a)). This amendment was formulated on the basis of the
language in the draft treaty proposed by CITEJA and was of-
fered before, and not coordinated with, consideration of the
Greek delegation’s amendment.

The Japanese delegation was apparently concerned by the
fact that the draft agreement prepared by CITEJA never direct-
ly stated that the limitation on liability would be lost in the
absence of the required notice (see App., infra, 118a (113a)).
Their concern was heightened with respect to Article 4 (ibid.),
presumably because the sanction provision in Article 4(2),
unlike Article 3(2), specifically listed only some of the preceed-
ing particulars as triggering the sanction provision and, hence,
might more readily have been misconstrued as excluding any
other requirement not specifically mentioned, including the
notice requirement. The Japanese delegation accordingly
recommended that the notice requirement be listed in both Ar-
ticles 3 and 4 as a “compulsory particular” (/.e., a particular that
triggers the sanction) (/bid.).'* Significantly, however, the Con-
vention delegates appear to have treated the amendment to Arti-
cle 3 as merely technical in nature and without substantive ef-
fect.'>

‘+ For similar reasons, the Conference decided to modify the wording of the
Articles concerned with air waybills, including Article 9. CITEJA’s final draft,
like previous drafts, listed the notice requirement for waybills in Article 9,
separately from both Article 8, which listed the particulars, and Article 17,
which contained the sanction provision. In order to “retain systematic agree-
ment with the other parallel articles” (presumably Articles 3 and 4), the Con-
ference delegates, at the behest of the drafting committee, placed the contents
of Article 9 as a particular within Article 8 and, with conforming amendments,
renumbered as Article 9 what had been Article 17 (see Second International
Conference on Private Aeronautical Law Minutes 199-200 (R. Horner & D.
Legrez trans. 1975) [hereinafter Second International Conference Minutes};
see also J.A. i161).

'* A Conference committee was responsible for organizing the various
amendments and describing each as a “question of substance,” of either
primary or secondary importance, or as a mere technical “question of
wording” (“redaction”) (see Second International Conference Minutes, 24-27;
J.A. 194-206). The committee did not directly place the Japanese amendment

21

The Greek and Japanese amendments together, however, had
a wholly unintended consequence. The resulting language,
which lists the notice requirement as a particular (the Japanese
amendment), and omits from the sanction provision the phrase
withdrawing the limitation on liability where there is a failure to
set forth particulars (the Greek amendment), suggests an inten-
tion to eliminate any sanction for an air carrier’s violation of
Article 3’s notice requirement. While it is unclear why this went
undetected, it seems quite evident from the available historical
information that the difference in language does not result from
an intention to omit, as to passenger tickets, the sanction that is
applicable to baggage checks and waybills for violation of the
notice requirement.

3. A related provision of the Warsaw Convention also
makes such a distinction improbable. The likely objective of the
notice requirement, equally applicable to tickets, baggage
checks, and air waybills, was to allow individuals to exercise
their right under Article 22 to persuade the carrier to agree to a
higher limit of liability (App., infra, 12a-13a (Sa-6a)) or, alter-
natively, to obtain added protection from loss by purchasing
private insurance.'® In the absence of notice, however, the
passenger or shipper of goods is effectively deprived of his
rights under Article 22. As described by the Second Circuit in
Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A., 370 F.2d 508
(1966), aff'd by an equally divided court, 390 U.S. 455 (1968)
(quoting Mertens v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 341 F.2d 851,
856-857, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 816 (1965)), “ ‘there would

to Article 3 under any of these categories, but the committee did include a
cross-reference to the Japanese amendment to Article 4 and indicated the need
“to take up the same general wording formula” (J.A. 197, 198 (emphasis add-
ed); App., infra, 114a (109a)). The absence of any discussion of the proposed
Japanese amendment of Article 3 in the Conference’s minutes also further sug-
gests that the amendment was not regarded as substantive in nature.

'© The right to contract for a higher liability limitation was an essential part
of the Convention throughout its drafting history. The very first draft pro-
posals included that right. See App., infra, 22a (1Sa-16a), 24a (18a-19a), 26a
(20a).

22

be little reason [for Article 22] to require that the ticket state
that the liability of the carrier is limited (art. 3(1)(e)), and to re-
quire that such a ticket be delivered to the passenger unless the
Convention also required that the ticket be delivered in such cir-
cumstances as to afford the passenger a reasonable opportunity
to take * * * self-protective measures.’ ” See also | International
Civil Aviation Organization, IJ/nternational Conference on
Private Air Law— The Hague, September 1955 — Minutes 89-90
(1956) [hereinafter Hague Minutes].'’

'? Common carrier law prevailing at the time also makes it unlikely that the
treaty drafters intended to draw a distinction between passenger tickets, bag-
gage checks, and air waybills. The requirement of notice for application of the
liability limitation was consistent with the then-settled principle of common
carrier law allowing a common carrier to limit its liability (in the absence of
negligence), if at all, only by express contract. See 2 T. Michie, A Treatise on
the Law of Carriers §§ 1158-1183, 1328-1352 (1915); 1 R. Hutchins, A Treatise
on the Law of Carriers Administered in the Courts of the United States,
Canada, and England §§ 401-402 (1906); see also New Jersey Steam Naviga-
tion Co. v. Merchant’s Bank, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 344, 382-385 (1848); cf. Hague
Minutes 67 (remarks of Mr. Ambrosini (Italy)) (“His delegation also wished to
have a sanction in the case where the carrier did not deliver a ticket or the
ticket did not state that the carriage was subject to the Warsaw Convention.
He recalled, in support of his position, that certain legislations, among them
the law of Italy, provided that any clause in a contract limiting liability must
not only be accepted by the parties but also signed. Thercfore, to delete the
sanction from the Convention would be going too far.”); J.A. 225-226
(remarks of Mr. Ambrosini). The purpose of the express contract was to en-
sure that the shipper (or passenger) had voluntarily agreed to the limitation.
The Warsaw Convention's notice requirement was far less rigorous than the
voluntariness inquiry engaged in by courts at the time (see 2 T. Michie, supra,
§§ 1178-1183, 1199-1219, 1354-1363; R. Hutchins, supra, §§ 406-418; see also
New Jersey Steam Navigation Co., 47 U.S. (6 How.) at 382-383), presumably
because the Convention was intended to aid the then-fledgling aviation in-
dustry (cf. TWA, Inc., v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. at 264-265 (Stevens,
J., dissenting); H. Drion, Limitation of Liability in International Air Law 15
(1954)). But the sanction scheme retained in the Convention shows that some
minimal evidence of voluntariness was required to legitimatize such an ex-
traordinary limitation on liability. Significantly, there was no distinction in
common carrier law in the relevant liability rules governing passenger tickets,
baggage checks, and waybills.

23

4. Finally, “the practical construction adopted by the par-
ties” to the Warsaw Convention does not compel a different
result. Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. at 396 (citation omitted).
The Executive ak 4 View on this question is long standing
and entitled to “great: weight.” Societe Nationale Industrielle
Aerospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern
District of lowa, slip op. 12 n.19; Sumitomo Shoji America,
Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184-185 (1982). Over twenty
years ago, we advised this Court of our views on this issue in
response to this Court’s invitation in Lisi (No. 67-70).'* We ad-
vanced then the same construction of Article 3’s sanction provi-
sion that we press now. Contrary to claims made in that case
(see J.A. 289, 291), moreover, our Lisi submission did not
represent a departure from our previous position. The United
States’ proposal at the Hague Conference in 1955 to amend Ar-
ticle 3(2) of the Warsaw Convention, which made explicit what
we believe had previously been implicit in that Article —that the
sanction should apply in the absence of fair notice — was merely
clarifying in that respect. See Hague Minutes 61 (summary of
remarks of Mr. Calkins (U.S.)) (“His delegation did not agree in
all respects with the Rio Protocol. However, it did agree with
the retention of the present sanction requirements in general for
failure to set forth the appropriate specifications on the
tickets.”). The United States did not there state that the sanction
would not apply in the absence of such amendment. The United
States Senate’s failure to consent to ratification of the Hague
Protocol was also not based on any dissatisfaction with the
sanction provision, as amended. See generally, Lowenfeld &
Mendelsohn, supra, 80 Harv. L. Rev. at 512.

'® An even earlier formal expression of the government’s view is the CAB’s
promulgation in 1963 of a rule describing the notice that must be included in a
passenger ticket by “each air carrier and foreign air carrier which, to any ex-
tent, avails itself of the limitation on liability to passengers provided by the
Warsaw Convention.” 28 Fed. Reg. 11775-11777 (1963) (codified at 14.C.F.R.
221.175(a) (emphasis added)).

24

Nor do we think that the contrary views of other signatories
to the Warsaw Convention should be controlling.'® While those
views are normally entitled to “considerable weight” (Air France
v. Saks, 470 U.S. at 404 (citation omitted)), they are less weighty
in this case for two reasons. First, they conflict with the view ex-
pressed by the United States, which is also a party to the Con-
vention. Hence, there is no consensus among the parties. Sec-
ond, unlike the United States, those nations have all ratified the
Hague Protocol, which, among other things, amended the Con-
vention to make explicit that the liability limitation is lost unless
notice of it is given on the passenger ticket. Those nations are
therefore less interested than the United States in the Warsaw
Convention’s original meaning. Moreover, their ratification of
the Hague Protocol suggests their agreement with our basic view
that the liability limitation should be lost in the absence of the
required notice.

B. The Montreal Agreement’s Ten-Point Type Standard Supplies
the Measure for Determining Respondent KAL’s Compliance
With the Warsaw Convention’s Requirement That it Provide
Notice of the Convention’s Liability Rules on a Passenger’s
Ticket

We also believe that KAL did not satisfy the Warsaw Conven-
tion’s notice requirement on those passenger tickets that did not
include notice of the applicability of the Convention’s liability
rules in at least ten-point type, as required by the Montreal
Agreement. The court of appeals’ contrary view ignores the rela-
tionship, both historical and legal, between the Montreal Agree-
ment and the Convention. By replacing a clear standard with an
unclear one, it undermines the certainty needed by air carriers,
passengers, and courts alike. It also fails to give appropriate
weight to the Executive Branch’s judgment regarding the rela-
tionship between type size and notice to passengers.

'? See Ludecke v. Canadian Pac. Airlines, Litd., 98 D.L.R.3d 52 (Can.
1979), rev’g $3 D.L.R.3d 636 (Que. C.A. 1974), affg in part and rev’g in part
12 Av. Cas. (CCH) 4 17,191 (Que. Super. Ct. 1971); 67-70 United Kingdom
and Northern Ireland Amici Br.; 67-70 Republic of Italy Amicus Br.; see also
J.A. 306-320 (67-70 Canada Amicus Br.).

25

1. First, the lower courts failed to appreciate the speciai
relationship between the Montreal Agreement and the Warsaw
Convention. The Montreal Agreement is not merely a private
agreement among air carriers approved by the federal govern-
ment. As the title of the agreement makes plain, it is an “A gree-
ment Relating to Liability Limitations of the Warsaw Conven-
tion and Hague Protocol’ (Pet. App. B4), which commits the
signators to enter into special contracts, pursuant to Article
22(1) of the Convention, including an increased liability limita-
tion of $75,000. The Montreal Agreement sets forth explicitly
the notice of limitation of liability, required to be printed on the
ticket “in type at least as large as 10 point modern type and in
ink contrasting with the stock” (Pet. App. BS). This very
specific notice requirement is plainly intended to define the way
in which the Convention’s corresponding notice provision is to
be satisfied (id. at A38-A39). The Montreal Agreement is con-
sistent with the terms of the Convention and does not purport,
or need to, “amend” the Convention itself in order to be legally
effective.2° Hence, although the Agreement is binding only on
the carriers who were parties to it—and, of course, does not

2° Respondent may mistakenly argue that we took a different position in
our submission to the Court in Lisi, where we advised the Court that “the
{CAB} has never been presented with any carrier agreement purporting to tix
the size of type or other typographical details of the Warsaw Convention
notice” (67-70 U.S. Amicus Br. at 9 (merits) (J.A. 305); see also id. at 2 (J.A.
300). We were not, however, there addressing the significance of the Montreal
Agreement, which was not relevant to the disposition of Lisi because the
airplane accident at issue had occurred prior to that Agreement. We were in-
stead simply refuting the air carrier's argument in Lisi that CAB approval of a
uniform ticket proposed by the International Air Transport Association con-
stituted a CAB determination that the Warsaw Convention's requirement that
a ticket provide notice of the Convention's lability limitation had been satis-
fied. In our brief at the jurisdictional stage in Lisi, we also made clear that
compliance with the Montreal Agreement’s notice requirement would satisty
the Warsaw Convention's notice requirement, and argued that, for that
reason, the lower court's decision in Lisi was of little prospective importance.
See 67-70 U.S. Amicus Br. at 9 Gurisdictional stage).

26

bind other nations?'—it is fair to hold those parties to the
bargain struck. Respondent is a party to the Montreal Agree-
ment (see Pet. App. B9; 14 C.F.R. Pt. 203).

As shown by both the history and terms of the Montreal
Agreement, moreover, its notice provision is an essential part of
that bargain. The United States agreed to withdraw its notice of
denunciation of the Convention only after exacting a few
critical concessions from the carriers.?? The Agreement consists
of only two numbered paragraphs, one of which is the require-
ment of a particular form of notice (Pet. App. B4-B6). The air
carriers agreed to both in order to avoid losing the benefit of the
Convention’s liability limitations altogether in United States
flights. Having done so, they should not now be allowed to re-
tain the benefit of that limitation where, as in this case, they
have ignored the very requirement that preserved it.

2. In any event, the ten-point type standard should be ap-
plied because it is the measure long ago adopted by the expert
agency (CAB) then responsible for determining the sufficiency
of such notice on passenger tickets. Even before the Montreal
Agreement, the CAB promulgated a rule requiring foreign air
carriers to include the notice of liability rules in ten-point type.
See 28 Fed. Reg. 11775-11777 (1963) (codified at 14 C.F.R.
221.175(a)) (reproduced at Pet. App. B7). While that rule did
not purport to construe the Warsaw Convention itself, there is
no reason why a court should apply a different standard of ade-

*! The United States did, however, obtain formal assurance of foreign
governments whose carriers were participating in the Agreement that those
governments approved of or at least would permit the Agreement to go into
effect subject only to termination on 12 months’ notice. See Lowenfeld &
Mendelsohn, supra, 80 Harv. L. Rev. at 593-594,

2? The United States unsuccessfully sought at the Hague Conference in 1955
to amend Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention to specify more precisely the
notice required, including the size of type (larger than ten-point) (see J.A.
215-216). The treaty negotiating history suggests that the delegates preferred
to allow each country to regulate the notice required. See Lowenfeld &
Mendelsohn, supra, 80 Harv. L. Rev. at 513-515. The absence in the Hague
Protocol of a more specific notice provision was one reason offered by those
opposed to Senate approval of the Protocol. See id. at 513.

27

quacy in Warsaw Convention cases within our jurisdiction. Ob-
viously some standard is necessary and it is better, for
passengers and airlines alike, to have a clear, settled standard
than it is to require courts and juries to engage in case-specific
factual inquiry into the “adequacy” of notice in individual cases.
Certainly such a fragmented approach would not further the
Warsaw Convention's goal of “uniformity” in international air
transportation. Cf. TWA, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466
U.S. at 256.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted.

CHARLES FRIED

Solicitor General
JOHN R. BOLTON

Assistant Atiorney General
DONALD B. AYER

Deputy Solicitor General

RICHARD J. LAZARUS
Assistant to the Solicitor General

JUNE 1988

APPENDIX A

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
WARSAW CONVENTION
(CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF
CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO
INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BY AIR,
CONCLUDED AT WARSAW, OCTOBER 12, 1929, 49
STAT. 3000 ET SEQ.)

{Official French Language Version]
e * * e *

CHAPITRE II—TITRES DE TRANSPORT
SECTION I—BILLET DE PASSAGE.
Article 3.

(1) Dans le transport de voyageurs, le transporteur est
tenu de délivrer un billet de passage qui doit contenir les
mentions suivantes:

a) le lieu et la date de |’émission;

b) les points de départ et de destination;

c) les arréts prévus, sous réserve de la faculté pour le
transporteur de stipuler qu’il pourra les modifier en cas de
nécessité et sans que cette modification puisse faire perdre
au transport son caractére international;

d) le nom et l’adresse du ou des transporteurs;

e) l’indication que le transport est soumis au régime de la
responsabilité établi par la présente Convention.

(2) L’absence, l’irrégularité ou la perte du billet n’affecte
ni l’existence, ni la validité du contrat de transport, qui
n’en sera pas moins soumis aux régles de la présente Con-
vention. Toutefois si le transporteur accepte le voyageur
sans qu’il ait été délivré un billet de passage, il n’aura pas le
droit de se prévaloir des dispositions de cette Convention
qui excluent ou limitent sa responsabilité.

(la)

2a

Article 4.

(1) Dans le transport de bagages, autres que les menus
Objets personnels dont le voyageur conserve la garde, le
transporteur est tenu de délivrer un bulletin de bagages.

(2) Le bulletin de bagages est établi en deux exemplaires,
l’un pour le voyageur, l’autre pour le transporteur.

(3) Il doit contenir les mentions suivantes;

a) le lieu et la date de l’émission;

b) les points de départ et de destination;

c) le nom et l’adresse du ou des transporteurs;

d) le numéro du billet de passage;

e) indication que la livraison des bagages est faite au
porteur du bulletin;

f) le nombre et le poids des colis;

g) le montant de la valeur déclarée conformément a I’ar-
ticle 22 alinéa 2;

h) indication que le transport est soumis au régime de
la responsabilité établi par la présente Convention.

(4) L’absence, l’irrégularité ou la perte du bulletin n’af-
fecte ni l’existence, ni la validité du contrat de transport
que n’en sera pas moins soumis aux régles de la présente
Convention. Toutefois si le transporteur accepte les
bagages sans qu’il ait été délivré un bulletin ou si le bulletin
ne contient pas les mentions indiquées sous les iettres d),
f), h), le transporteur n’aura pas le droit de se prévaloir des
dispositions de cette Convention qui excluent ou limitent
sa responsabilité.

SECTION IIL.—LETTRE DE TRANSPORT AERIEN.
Article 5.

(1) Tout transporteur de marchandises a le droit de
demander a l’expéditeur l’établissement et la remise d’un
litre appelé: “lettre de transport aérien”; tout expéditeur a
le droit de demander au transporteur l’acceptation de ce
document.

3a

(2) Toutefois, l’absence, l’irrégularité ou la perte de ce
titre n’affecte ni l’existence, ni la validité du contrat de
transport qui n’en sera pas moins soumis aux régles de la
présente Convention, sous réserve des dispositions de I’ar-
ticle 9.

Article 6.

(1) La lettre de transport aérien est établie par l’ex-
péditeur en trois exemplaires originaux et remise avec la
marchandise.

(2) Le premier exemplaire porte la mention “pour le
transporteur”; il est signé par l’expéditeur. Le deuxi¢me
exemplaire porte la mention “pour le destinataire”; il est
signé par |’expéditeur et le transporteur et il accompagne la
marchandise. Le troisitme exemplaire est signé par le
transporteur et remis par lui a l’expéditeur apres accepta-
tion de la marchandise.

(3) La signature du transporteur doit étre apposée dés
l’acceptation de la marchandise.

(4) La signature du transporteur peut étre remplacée par
un timbre; celle de l’expéditeur peut étre imprimée ou
remplacée par un timbre.

(5) Si, a la demande de l’expéditeur, le transporteur
établit a lettre de transport aérien, il est considéré jusqu’a
preuve contraire, comme agissant pour le compte de I’ex-
péditeur.

Article 7.

Le transporteur de marchandises a le droit de demander a
’expéditeur l’établissement de lettres de transport aérien
différentes lorsqu’il y a plusieurs colis.

4a

Article 8.

La lettre de transport aérien doit contenir les mentions
suivantes:

a) le lieu ot le document a été créé et la date a laquelle il
a été établi;

b) les points de départ et de destination;

c) les arréts prévus, sous réserve de la faculté, pour le
transporteur, de stipuler qu’il pourra les modifier en cas de
nécessité et sans que cette modification puisse faire perdre
au transport son caractére international;

d) le nom et l’adresse de I’expéditeur;

e) le nom et l’adresse du premier transporteur;

f) le nom et l’adresse du destinataire, s’il y a lieu;

g) la nature de la marchandise;

h) le nombre, le mode d’emballage, les marques par-
ticuliéres ou les numéros des colis;

i) le poids, la quantité, le volume ou les dimensions de la
marchandise;

j)) état apparent de la marchandise et de |’emballage;

k) le prix du transport s’il est stipulé, la date et le lieu de
paiement et la personne qui doit payer;

1) si ’envoi est fait contre remboursement, le prix des
marchandises et, éventuellement, le montant des frais;

m) le montant de la valeur déclarée conformément a
article 22, alinéa 2;

n) le nombre d’exemplaires de la lettre de transport
aérien;

0) les documents transmis au transporteur pour accom-
pagner la lettre de transport aérien;

p) le délai de transport et indication sommaire de la voie
a suivre (via) s’ils ont été stipulés;

q) Vindication que le transport est soumis au régime de
la responsabilité établi par la présente Convention.

Sa

Article 9

Si le transporteur accepte des marchandises sans qu’il ait
été établi une lettre de transport aérien, ou si celle-ci ne
contient pas toutes les mentions indiquées par I’article 8 [a)
a i) inclusivement et q)], le transporteur n’aura pas le droit
de se prévaloir des dispositions de cette Convention qui ex-
cluent ou limitent sa responsabilité.

* * * * *

CHAPITRE III. -RESPONSABILITE DU
TRANSPORTEUR

Article 20.

(1) Le transporteur n’est pas responsable s’il prouve qui
lui et ses préposés ont pris toutes les mesures nécessaires
pour éviter le dommage ou qu’il leur était impossible de les
prendre.

(2) Dans les transports de marchandises et de bagages, le
transporteur n’est pas responsable, s’il prouve que le dom-
mage provient d’une faute de pilotage, de conduite de
l’aéronef ou de navigation, et que, a tous autres égards, lui
et ses préposés ont pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour
éviter le dommage.

Article 21.

Dans le cas ou le transporteur fait la preuve que la faute
de la personne lésée a causé le dommage ou y a contribue,
le tribunal pourra, conformément aux dispositions de sa
propre loi, écarter ou atténuer la responsabilité du
transporteur.

Article 22.

(1) Dans le transport des personnes, la responsabilité du
transporteur envers chaque voyageur est limitée a la
somme de cent vingt cing mille francs. Dans le cas ou,

6a

d’aprés la loi du tribunal saisi, l’indemnité peut étre fixée
sous forme de rente, le capital de la rente ne peut dépasser
cette limite. Toutefois par une convenion spéciale avec le
transporteur, le voyageur pourra fixer une limite de
responsabilité plus élevée.

(2) Dans le transport de bagages enregistrés et de mar-
chandises, la responsabilité du transporteur est limitée a la
somme de deux cent cinquante francs par kilogramme,
sauf déclaration spéciale d’intérét a la livraison faite par
’expéditeur au moment de la remise du colis au
transporteur et moyennant le paiement d’une taxe
supplémentaire éventuelle. Dans ce cas, le transporteur
sera tenu de payer jusqu’a concurrence de la somme
déclarée, 4 moins qu’il ne prouve qu’elle est supérieure a
lintérét réel de l’expéditeur a la livraison.

(3) En ce qui concerne les objets dont le voyageur con-
serve la garde, la responsabilité du transporteur est limitée
a cing mille francs par voyageur.

(4) Les sommes indiquée ci-dessus sont considérées com-
me se rapportant au franc francais constitué par soixante-
cing et demie milligrammes d’or au titre de neuf cents
milliémes de fin. Elles pourront étre converties dans cha-
que monnaie nationale en chiffres ronds.

Article 23.

Toute clause tendant a exonérer le transporteur de sa
responsabilite ou a établir une limite inférieure a celle qui
est fixée dans la présente Convention est nulle et de nul ef-
fet, mais la nullité de cette clause n’entraine pas la nullité
du contrat qui reste souiis aux dispositions de la présente
Convention.

Article 24.

(1) Dans les cas prévus aux articles 18 et 19 tout action
en responsabilité, a quelque titre que ce soit, ne peut étre

7a

exercée que dans les conditions et limites prévues par la
présenie Convention.

(2) Dans les cas prévus a l’article 17, s’appliquent égale-
ment les dispositions de l’alinéa précédent, sans préjudice
de la détermination des personnes qui ont le droit d’agir et
de leurs droits respectifs.

Article 25.

(1) Le transporteur n’aura pas le droit de se prévaloir des
dispositions de la présente Convention qui excluent ou
limitent sa responsabilité, si le dommage provient de son
dol ou d’une faute qui, d’aprés la loi du tribunal saisi, est
considérée comme équivalente au dol.

(2) Ce droit lui sera également refusé si le dommage a été
causé dans les mémes conditions par un de ses préposés
agissant dans l’exercice de ses fonctions.

* * * * *

CHAPITRE V.
DISPOSITIONS GENERALES ET FINALES

* * * * ~

Article 39

(1) Chacune des Hautes Parties Contractantes pourra
dénouncer la présente Convention par une notification
faite au Gouvernment de la République de Pologne, qui en
avisera immédiatement le Gouvernement de chacune des
Hautes Parties Contractantes.

(2) La dénonciation prodvira ses effets six mois apres la
notification de la dénouncement et seulement a l’égard de
la Partie qui y aura procédé.

” * * * *

8a
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

CHAPTER II—TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS
SECTION I.—PASSENGER TICKET
Article 3

(1) For the transportation of passengers the carrier must
deliver a passenger ticket which shall contain the following
particulars:

(a) The place and date of issue;

(b) The place of departure and of destination;

(c) The agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier
may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case of
necessity, and that if he exercises that right, the alteration
shall not have the effect of depriving the transportation of
its international character;

(d) The name and address of the carrier or carriers;

(e) A statement that the transportation is subject to the
rules relating to liability established by this convention.

(2) The absence, irregularity, or loss of the passenger
ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the
contract of transportation, which shall none the less be
subject to the rules of this convention. Nevertheless, if the
carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket hav-
ing been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself
of those provisions of this convention which exclude or
limit his liability.

SECTION II.—BAGGAGE CHECK

Article 4

(1) For the transportation of baggage, other than small
personal objects of which the passenger takes charge
himself, the carrier must deliver a baggage check.

9a

(2) The baggage check shall be made out in duplicate,
one part for the passenger and the other part for the car-
rier.

(3) The baggage check shall contain the following par-
ticulars:

(a) The place and date of issue;

(b) The place of departure and of destination;

(c) The name and address of the carrier or carriers;

(d) The number of the passenger ticket;

(e) A statement that delivery of the baggage will be
made to the bearer of the baggage check;

(f) The number and weight of the packages;

(g) The amount of the value declared in accordance with
article 22 (2);

(h) A statement that the transportation is subject to the
rules relating to liability established by this convention.

(4) The absence, irregularity, or loss of the baggage
check shall not affect the existence or the validity of the
contract of transportation which shall none the less be
subject to the rules of this convention. Nevertheless, if the
carrier accepts baggage without a baggage check having
been delivered, or if the baggage check does not contain
the particulars set out at (d), (/), and (A) above, the carrier
shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of
the convention which exclude or limit his liability.

SECTION III].—AIR WAYBILL

Article 5

(1) Every carrier of goods has the right to require the
consignor to make out and hand over to him a document
called an “air waybill”: every consignor has the right to re-
quire the carrier to accept this document.

10a

(2) The absence, irregularity, or loss of this document
shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract
of transportation which shall, subject to the provisions of
article 9, be none the less governed by the rules of this con-
vention.

Article 6

(1) The air waybill shall be made by the consignor in
three original parts and be handed over with the goods.

(2) The first part shall be marked “for the carrier”, and
shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be
marked “for the consignee”; it shall be signed by the con-
Signor and by the carrier and shall accompany the goods.
The third part shall be signed by the carrier and handed by
him to the consignor after the goods have been accepted.

(3) The carrier shall sign on acceptance of the goods.

(4) The signature of the carrier may be stamped; that of
ihe consignor may be printed or stamped.

(5) If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes
out the air waybill, he shall be deemed, subject to proof to
the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor.

Article 7

The carrier of goods has the right to require the con-
Signor to make out separate waybills when there is more
than one package.

Article 8

The air waybill shall contain the following particulars:

(a) The place and date of its execution;

(b) The place of departure and of destination;

(c) The agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier
may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case of
necessity, and that if he exercises that right the alteration

lla

shall not have the effect of depriving the transportation of
its international character;

(d) The name and address of the consignor;

(e) The name and address of the first carrier;

(f) The name and address of the consignee, if the case so
requires;

(g) The nature of the goods;

(h) The number of packages, the method of packing,
and the particular marks or numbers upon them;

(i) The weight, the quantity, the volume, or dimensions
of the goods;

(/) The apparent condition of the goods and of the pack-
ing,

(k) The freight, if it has been agreed upon, the date and
place of payment, and the person who is to pay it;

(/) If the goods are sent for payment on delivery, the
price of the goods, and, if the case so requires, the amount
of the *xpenses incurred;

(m) The amount of the value declared in accordance
with article 22(2);

(n) The number of parts of the air waybill;

(0) The documents handed to the carrier to accompany
the air waybill;

(p) The time fixed for the completion of the transporta-
tion and a brief note of the route to be followed, if these
matters have been agreed upon;

(q) A statement that the transportation is subject to the
rules relating to liability established by this convention.

Article 9

If the carrier accepts goods without an air waybill hav-
ing been made out, or if the air waybill does not contain all
the particulars set out in article 8 (a) to (/), inclusive, and
(q), the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the

l2a

provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his
liability.

CHAPTER III—LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER

* * * * *

Article 20

(1) The carrier shall not be liable if he proves that he and
his agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the
damage or that it was impossible for him or them to take
such measures.

(2) In the transportation of goods and baggage the car-
rier shall not be liable if he proves that the damage was oc-
casioned by an error in piloting, in the handling of the air-
craft, or in navigation and that, in all other respects, he
and his agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid
the damage.

Article 21

If the carrier proves that the damage was caused by or
contributed to by the negligence of the injured person the
court may, in accordance with the provisions of its own
law, exonerate the carrier wholly or partly from his liabili-

ly.

Article 22

(1) In the transportation of passengers the liability of
the carrier for each passenger shall be limited to the sum of
125,000 francs. Where, in accordance with the law of the
court to which the case is submitted, damages may be
awarded in the form of periodical payments, the
equivalent capital value of the said payments shall not ex-

l3a

ceed 125,000 francs. Nevertheless, by special contract, the
carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of
liability.

(2) In the transportation of checked baggage and of
goods, the liability of the carrier shall be limited to a sum
of 250 francs per kilogram, unless the consignor has made,
at the time when the package was handed over to the car-
rier, a special declaration of the value at delivery and has
paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that
case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding
the declared sum, unless he proves that the sum is greater
than the actual value to the consignor at delivery.

(3) As regards objects of which the passenger takes
charge himself the liability of the carrier shall be limited to
5,000 francs per passenger.

(4) the sums mentioned above shall be deemed to refer
to the French franc consisting of 65’ milligrams of gold
at the standard of fineness of nine hundred thousandths.
These sums may be converted into any national currency
in round figures.

Article 23

Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability
or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this
convention shall be null and void, but the nullity of any
such provision shall not involve the nullity of the whole
contract, which shall remain subject to the provisions of
this convention.

Article 24

(1) In the cases covered by articles 18 and 19 any action
for damages, however founded, can only be brought sub-
ject to the conditions and limits set out in this convention.

l4a

(2) In the cases covered by article 17 the provisions of
the preceding paragraph shall also apply, without preju-
dice to the questions as to who are the persons who have
the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights.

Article 25

(1) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of
the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his
liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct
or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the
law of the court to which the case is submitted, is con-
sidered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct.

(2) Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail
himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused
under the same circumstances by any agent of the carrier
acting within the scope of his employment.

* * * * * *

CHAPTER V GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

* * * * *

Article 39

(1) Any one of the High Contracting Parties may de-
nounce this convention by a notification addressed to the
Government of the Republic of Poland, which shall at
once inform the Government of each of the High Con-
tracting Parties.

(2) Denunciation shall take effect six months after the
notification of denunciation, and shall operate only as

regards the party which shall have proceeded to denuncia-
tion.

lSa

APPENDIX B

CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE
DE
DROIT PRIVE AERIEN

(27 OCTOBRE —6 NOVEMBRE 1925)

* * ” * *

[page 12} AVANT-PROJET [Annexe de Circulaire ad-
dressée par Ministéres des Affaires Etrangéres (30 Juin

1925)]

ARTICLE 2.

Le transport international sera constaté par un billet de
passage ou une lettre de voiture internationale, mention-
nant les points d’arrivée et de destination et, s’il y a lieu, les
points de transbordement.

Ce billet de passage sera toujours nominatif et ne pourra
étre cédé. La lettre de voiture pourra étre établie a per-

somme dénommeée, a ordre ou a porteur.
La lettre de voiture indiquera notamment la nature et le

poids des objets transportés, la déclaration de leur valeur
si elle est faite par l’expéditeur, le prix et le mode de fixa-
tion du prix de transport et le lieu du payement.

* * o * *

[page 13] ARTICLE 5.

En aucun cas, la responsabilité du transporteur ne
pourra dépasser la somme de dix mille francs par
voyageur; toutefois le voyageur pourra en payant une taxe
spéciale de garantie se faire garantir contre les risques du
transporteur pour une.somme déterminée.

Dans le transport des marchandises, la responsabilité du
transporteur ne peut dépasser deux cents francs par colis

l6a

ou unité sauf déclaration spéciale de valeur faite par |’ex-
péditeur, qui aura toute liberté a cet égard.
Les valeurs ci-dessus sont des valeurs or.
* * * * e

[page 52] RAPPORT
DE LA DEUXIEME COMMISSION

RESPONSABILITE DU TRANSPORTEUR PAR AERONEFS.

* ._ + + *&

[page 54] Forme du contrat.—Le contrat de transport
est-il conventuel ou formel? L’opinion unamme de la
Commission est que le contrat est conventuel; mais il y a
une grande importance pratique a préciser les conditions
du transport notamment pour la preuve éventuelle.

Ainsi avons-nous admis que le titre de transport prévu a
l’article 3 constate l’existence du contrat mais ne le con-
Stitue pas.

Il faut exiger, dans la pratique, l’établissement d’un
billet de passage ou d’une lettre de voiture sans que
toutefois l’omission de ce titre influe sur l’existence du con-
trat; il faut aussi que l’expéditeur puisse exiger un récépissé
de la marchandise et, a cet égard, il semble que le moyen le
plus simple réside dans la remise d’un double de la lettre de
voiture certifié par signature ou timbre du transporteur.

Ces lois nationales devront pourvoir, par des prescrip-
tions pénales, a ce que ces exigences soient réellement sac-
tionnées.

Le titre de transport n’est qu’un instrumentum mais il a
une importance indeniable. [page 55} Nous avons estimé
necessaire d’en préciser la forme, de facon a faciliter
l’adoption d’un modéle unique par les diverses entreprises
de transports aériens.

17a

Les mentions que doit contenir le titre de transport sont
énumérées a l’article 4; elles ne sont pas limitatives et point
n’est besoin d’en justifier l’exigence. Nous n’avons pas
précisé les documents qui accompagnent éventuellement la
lettre de voiture, car il appartient d’une part a chaque Etat
d’en établir la liste et d’autre part au transporteur de
refuser une marchandise sans papiers réguliers. Ici nous
posons seulement la regle que la lettre de voiture mention-
nera a titre de simple inventaire les documents quels qu’ils

i i lui seront annexés.

“ae pour le transport par chemin de fer nous avons
admis que l’expéditeur répond de I’exactitude des mentions
inscrites sur la lettre de voiture et que cette responsabilité
sera attestée par la signature de l’expéditeur apposee sur la
lettre de voiture.

[page 59]

AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE
SUR
LA RESPONSABILITE DU TRANSPORTEUR PAR AERONEFS.
{Annexé Rapport de la Deuxieme Commission]

+ + * fe a7

Article 3.

Le transport international sera constate par un billet de

passage ou une lettre de voiture. P
[page 60) Le transporteur sera tenu, a la demande de

Vexpéditeur, de lui délivrer un double de la lettre de

voiture diment certifié. | : ,
L’absence ou la perte de ces titres ne préjudicie pas a
existence et a la validité du contrat de transport.

Article 4

Le billet de passage et la lettre de voiture doivent men-
tionner:

18a

Les points de depart et de destination;

L’itinéraire a suivre;

Le nom et l’adresse du passager ou de |’expéditeur;

Le nom et l’adresse du transporteur;

Le prix du transport, la date et le lieu du payement;

L'indication de la limite légale de responsabilité et, s’il y
a lieu, de la garantie supplémentaire du transporteur sui-
vant l’article 7; |

Le lieu et la date de l’emission.

La lettre de voiture doit, en outre, indiquer:

Le nom et l’adresse du destinataire;

La nature de la marchandise et le mode d’emballage;

Le nombre, les marques, les numéros et le poids des
colis;

La déclaration de leur valeur, si elle est faite par l’ex-
péditeur, conformément a l'article 7;

Les documents remis au transporteur pour accom-
pagner la lettre de voiture.

La lettre de voiture sera signée par l’expéditeur qui
répondra de l’exactitude des mentions qui y som con-
tenues.

[page 61] Article 7.

En aucun cas la responsabilité du transporteur ne
pourra dépasser la somme de dix mille francs par
voyageur. Toutefois par une convention spéciale avec le
transporteur le voyageur pourra stipuler une limite de
responsabilité plus élevée.

Dans le transport des marchandises, la responsabilité du
transporteur ne peut dépasser 200 francs par colis, sauf
declaration spéciale de valeur faite par l’expéditeur, auquel
cas le transporteur sera tenu de payer la valeur déclarée a
moins qu’il ne prouve qu’elle est supérieure a la valeur
réelle au point d’arrivée.

19a

Les valeurs ci-dessus sont des valeurs or. Elles pourront
étre converties dans chaque monnaie nationale en chiffres
ronds.

* * * * *

[page 69] PROJET DE CONVENTION.

également désireux de donner une solution a l’importante
question de la responsabilité du transporteur dans les
transports internationaux par aéronefs, ont résolu de con-
clure une Convention et ont en conséquence nomme pour
leurs plénipotentiaires, savoir:

lesquels, aprés s’étre communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs,
trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des disposi-
tions suivantes:

[page 70] Article 3.

Le transport international sera constaté par un billet de
passage Ou une lettre de voiture.

Le transporteur sera tenu, a la demande de l’expéditeur,
de lui délivrer un double de la lettre de voiture dument cer-
tifie.

L’absence, l’irregularite ou la perte du titre de transport
ne préjudicie ni a l’existence ni a la validite du contrat du
transport.

Article 4.

Le billet de passage et la lettre de voiture mentionneront
notamment:

Les points de départ et de destination,

L’itinéraire a suivre:

Le nom et l’adresse du transporteur,

20a

le prix du transport, la date et le lieu du payement;
L'indication de la limite légale de responsabilité, et, s’il y
a lieu, de la garantie supplémentaire du transporteur sui-
vant l’article 7;
Le lieu et la date de l’émission.
La lettre de voiture indiquera, en outre, notamment;
Le nom et l’adresse de l’expéditeur et du destinataire:
Le délai de transport, s’il est stipulé;
La nature de la marchandise et le mode d’emballage;
Le nombre, les marques les numéros et le poids des
colis;
La déclaration de leur valeur, si elle est faite par l’ex-
péditeur conformément a l'article 7;
Les documents remis au transporteur pour accompagne
la lettre de voiture.
[page 71) La lettre, de voiture sera signée par I’ex-
péditeur qui répondra de |’exactitude des mentions qui y
sont contenues.

Article 7.

La responsabilité du transporteur est limitée a la somme
de dix mille francs par voyageur. Toutefois, par une con-
vention spéciale avec le transporteur, le voyageur pourra
fixer une limite de responsabilité plus élevée.

Dans le transport des marchandises, ia responsabilité du
transporteur est limitée a la somme de 200 francs par colis
sauf déclaration spéciale de valeur faite par expéditeur,
auquel cas le transporteur sera tenu de payer la valeur
deéclarée 4 moins qu’il ne prouve qu’elle est supérieure a la
valeur réelle au point de destination.

Les valeurs ci-dessus sont des valeurs or. Elles pourront

nn dans chaque monnaie nationale en chiffres
ronds.

2la

[page 82] MOTION

Apres avoir dressé, a titre d’exemple, la liste des ques-
tions dont l’étude devrait immédiatement suivre l’examen
du probléme de la responsabilité du transporteur par
aéronefs, la Conférence considerant |l’importance,
l’urgence, la complexite et la nature techniquement juridi-
que de ces questions, exprime le voeu que soit, a bref délai,
nommé un Comité special d’Experts chargé de preparer la
continuation des travaux de la Conference.

Ce comité serait composé d’un nombre restreint de
membres. Son siége normal serait a Paris.

La Conference prie, en conséquence, le Gouvernement
francais de bien vouloir se mettre en rapport avec les
Gouvernements invités a cette Conférence pour examiner
la suite a donner a cette recommendation.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXCERPTS FROM INTERNA-
TIONAL CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE AVIATION LAW
(OCTOBER 27-NOVEMBER 6, 1925)

* * * * *

PRELIMINARY DRAFT. [Annexed to Circular from Foreign
Affairs Minister (June 30, 1925)]

* » * * *

ARTICLE 2.—The international transport shall be
verified by a passage ticket or international way-bill, men-
tioning the points of arrival and of destination and, if
necessary, the points of transshipment.

This passage ticket shall always be personal and cannot
be transferred. The way-bill may be issued to a specified
person, to order, or to bearer.

The way-bill shall indicate, in particular, the nature and
weight of the objects carried, the declaration of their value
if it is made by the sender, the cost, and the method of fix-
ing the cost of carriage, and the place of payment.

22a

* * * * *

AR TICLE 5.—1n no case can the responsibility of the
carrier exceed the sum of 10,000 francs per passenger;
however, the passenger may, by paying a special guarantee
tax, have himself guaranteed against the risks of the car-

rier for a fixed sum.

me regards the carriage of goods, the responsibility of
the carrier may not exceed 200 francs per parcel or unit
except in the case of a special declaration of value made by

the sender, who shall have every freedom in this respect
The above values are gold values. .

* * * * *

REPORT OF THE SECOND COMMISSION

Liability of the Air Carrier

* * * * *

Form of the contract

Is the contract of transportation contractual or formal?
The unanimous opinion of the Commission is that it is
contractual; but there is great practical importance in
specifying the transportation conditions, especially for
evidence which may be needed at some future time.

We have therefore agreed that the transportation docu-
ment provided in Article 3 establishes the existence of the
contract but does not constitute it.

7 In practice, a passenger ticket or air waybill must be
issued; however, the absence of this document shall not ef-
fect the existence of the contract. In addition, the con-
signor has the right to require a receipt for the goods and

in this regard, it seems that the simplest method is to hand

over a copy of the air waybill, certified by the si
, € sign
stamp of the carrier. ‘ —

23a

These national laws must ensure, through penalties, that
these requirements are respected.

The transportation document is only an
“instrumentum,” but it has an undeniable importance. We
have felt it necessary to specify its format, in order to
facilitate the adoption of a single model by the various air
transportation companies.

The particulars that the transportation document is to
contain are listed in Article 4. They are not restrictive and
there is no need to justify requiring them. We have not
specified such documents as may accompany the air
waybill, because it is the responsibility of each State to
establish a list of them, and it is the carrier’s responsibility
to refuse goods without the proper documents. We thus
establish the rule that the air waybill must simply list the
accompanying documents.

As for railway transport, we have agreed that the con-
signor shall be responsible for the correctness of the par-
ticulars listed in the air waybill and that this responsibility
will be certified by the signature of the consignor affixed
to the air waybill.

* o * * *

Draft of the International Convention
on the Liability of Air Carriers

Article 3

International transportation shall be established by a
passenger ticket or an air waybill.

The carrier must deliver, upon the request of the con-
signor, two copies of a duly certified air waybill.

The absence or loss of these documents shall not prej-
udice the existence or the validity of the contract of
transportation.

Article 4

The passenger ticket and the air waybill should contain
the following particulars:

The place of departure and destination;

24a

The itinerary to be followed;

The name and address of the passenger or the con-
signor;

The name and address of the carrier;

The freight cost, the date and place of payment;

A statement of the legal limit of liability and, if
necessary, Of the additional guarantee of the carrier ac-
cording to Article 7;

The place and date of issue;

The air waybill should additionally indicate;

The name and address of the consignee;

The nature of the goods and the method of packing;

The number and weight of packages, and particular
marks or numbers upon them;

The declaration of their value, if made by the consignor,
in accordance with Article 7;

The documents handed over to the carrier to accompany
the air waybill.

The air waybill shall be signed by the consignor, who
shall be responsible for the correctness of the particulars
mentioned therein.

Article 7

In the transportation of persons the liability of the car-
rier shall be limited to the sum of ten thousand francs per
passenger. However, by special contract, the carrier and
the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.

In the transportation of goods the liability of the carrier
shall be limited to 200 francs per package, unless the con-
signor has made a special declaration of value, in which
case the carrier will be liable to pay the declared value
unless he proves that the sum is greater than the actual
value at the point of destination.

The above-mentioned sums are gold values. They may
be converted into national currencies in round figures.

25a

* * * * *

SCHEME OF AGREEMENT.

likewise desirous of finding a solution for the important
question regarding responsibility of the conveying party in
international transports by aerial machines, they have
decided to enter into an Agreement and as a consequence

have appointed their plenipotentiaries, to wit:

who having become acquainted with their full powers,
found in good and due form, having agreed to the follow-

ing provisions:

Article 3.

International transport shall be established by a travel-
ticket or way-bill. |

Upon request of the forwarding party, the carrier shall
be bound to deliver him a duplicate of the way-bill duly
certified. _

Lack, irregularity or loss of the transport certificate
does not cause prejudice to either the existence or validity
of the transport contract.

Article 4.

The travel-ticket and way-bill shall mention in par-
ticular:

The place of departure and arrival.

The route followed.

The name and address of carrier.

Cost of transport, date and place of payment.

Indication of the legal limit of responsibility, and,
should the case arise, of the supplementary guarantee of
the carrier, according to Article 7.

26a

Place and date of issue.

Furthermore, the way-bill shall mention, in particular:

The name and address of the forwarding party and the
consignee.

The length of time for transport, if it is stipulated.

Nature of the merchandise and style of packing.

Number and weight of packets, marks and figures in-
dicated thereon.

Declaration of their value, if same is made by the for-
warding party, in accordance with article 7.

Documents handed to the carrier to go with the way-
bill.

The way-bill shall be signed by the forwarding party
who shall be held responsible for the correction of the in-
dications contained therein.

* * * * *

Article 7.

Responsibility of the conveying party is limited to the
sum of ten thousand francs per passenger. Nevertheless,
upon special agreement with the conveying party, the
passenger shall be able to fix a higher limit of responsibili-
ty.

In the conveyance of merchandise, the conveying party’s
responsibility is limited to the sum of 200 francs per
package unless a special declaration of value has been
made by the forwarding party, in which case the carrier
shall be held liable for the value declared unless he is able
to prove it greater than the real value at the place of ar-
rival.

The foregoing values are gold values. They may be con-
verted into every national currency in round figures.

* * * * *

27a

MOTION

After having drawn up, as an example, the list of ques-
tions, study of which should immediately follow examina-
tion of the problem regarding responsibility of the convey-
ing party, by aerial machine, the Conference, considering
the importance, urgency, complexity and technically
judicial nature of these questions, expresses the wish that a
special Committee of Experts be appointed as soon as
possible, on which shall devolve the task of preparing the
continuation of the work of the Conference.

This Committee shall be composed of a restricted
number of members. Its normal headquarters shall be in
Paris.

The Conference, therefore, prays the French Govern-
ment to be good enough to get into touch with the Govern-
ments invited to this Conference to examine the decision
to be given with regard to this recommendation.

28a
APPENDIX C

COMITE INTERNATIONAL TECHNIQUE
D’EXPERTS JURIDIQUE AERIENS

COMPTE — RENDU
DE LA 1** SESSION

MAI 1926

* * * % a

[page 47] RESOLUTION No. 2
Réeglement Intérieur du Comité

Le Comité décide d’adopter le Réglement intérieur ci-
apres:

* * * * *

[page 48] Article 4

Les Commissions prévues a I’article 2 ci-dessus nom-
ment leur Président et les Rapporteurs de chacune des
questions inscrites a leur ordre du jour.

Le Rapporteur prepare, sur la question qu’il a été chargé
d’étudier, un questionnaire adressé a tous les membres de
la Commission, qui doivent, dans un délai fixé par celle-ci
lors de inscription a l’ordre du jour, adresser directement
leur réponse au Rapporteur ainsi qu’une copie au Secré-
taire du Comité.

Le Rapporteur établit son Rapport contenant un texte
préecédeé d’un exposé des motifs. Il adresse son Rapport au
Secrétaire du Comité pour distribution a tous les membres
de la Commission.

La Commission se réunit ensuite sur convocation de son
Président pour étudier les rapports élaborés et préparer un

29a

texte a soumettre au Comité. Elle désigne alors les Rap-
porteurs chargés de présenter ses conclusions au Comité.
Elle siége au lieu fixé par son Président, d’accord avec le
Président du Comité.

Les textes ainsi préparés sont immédiatement communi-
qués par le Secrétaire du Comité a tous les membres du
Comité.

* * * * a

[page 49] Article 7

Aprés approbation par le Comité, le Rapport Général et
les Projets de Conventions sont transmis au Gouverne-
ment francais pour communication a tous les Gouverne-
ments en vue de la convocation prochaine de la Con-
férence Internationale de Droit Privé Aérien.

* * * a *

RESOLUTION No. 3

Le Comité des Experts, estimant qu’il y a lieu d’ex-
aminer dans leur ensemble les problémes du Droit Privé
soulevés par la Navigation Aérienne décide de nommer
quatre Commissions composées de onze Membres.

Chaque Commission aura a faire l’étude des questions

suivantes:

1° Commission

1) Nationalité des aéronefs;

2) Registre aéronautique;

3) Propriété, copropriété, construction et transfert;
4) Droits réels, hypothéques, privileges et saisie.

2» Commission

1) Régime des transports (transports commerciaux,
tourisme, etc.);

30a

2) Lettre de voiture;

3) Responsabilité du transporteur envers les expéditeurs
de marchandises et les passagers;

4) Jet de la cargaison et avarie commune;

5) Location des aéronefs.

[page 50} 3* Commission

1) Dommages et responsabilités envers les tiers (atterr-
issage, abordage, jet);

2) Limites de responsabilité (Limitation forfaitaire,
abandon);

3) Assurances.

4° Commission
1) Condition juridique du Commandant et du per-
sonnel;
2) Accidents du personnel et assurances;
3) Régime des passagers;
4) Loi applicable aux actes et aux faits a bord de I’aéro-
nef.

Chacune des Commissions, en examinant les questions
mises 4 son ordre du jour, devra s’occuper des difficultés
relatives a la compétence, a la prescription ou aux
déchéances.

Le Comité recommande a chacune de ces Commissions,
dans l’étude complete qu’elle aura a faire des problémes
qui lui sont confiés, de faire porter tout d’abord son ex-
amen sur les questions suivantes:

1° Commission: Registre Aéronautique, propriété et
hypotky que;

2° Commission: Lettic ue voiture et, éventuellement, ex-
amen des modifications qui seraient
demandées au Projet de Convention de
Paris de 1925;

3la

3° Commission: Dommages causés aux personnes et aux
biens se trouvant a la surface;

4° Commission: Condition juridique du Commandant de
l’aéronef.
* * * = *

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXCERPTS FROM
COMPLETE PROCEEDINGS OF CITEJA’S FIRST
SESSION
MAY 1926

- * * ba *

RESOLUTION NO. 2

INTERIOR REGULATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

The Committee decides to adopt the following interior

regulations:
- * * * *

Article 4.

The Commissions provided for in Article 2 above will
appoint their President and the Reporters for each of the
items set down on the Agenda.

The Reporter will prepare, on the item which he has
been charged to study, a questionaire addressed to all the
members of the Commission, who should, within a period
fixed by the Commission at the time the item is placed on
the Agenda, send their reply direct to the Reporter as well
as a copy to the Secretary of the Committee.

The Reporter will prepare his report, consisting of text
preceded by a statement of motives. He will send his
report to the Secretary of the Committee for distribution
to all the members of the Commission.

The Commission will then meet on convocation by its
President in order to study the reports made and to pre-

32a

pare a text to be submitted to the Committee. It will there-
upon designate the Reporters charged with the presenta-
tion of its conclusions to the Committee. It will sit at the
place fixed by its President with the concurrence of the
President of the Committee.

The text thus prepared will be immediately communi-
cated by the Secretary of the Committee to all the
members of the Committee.

* * * *

Article 7.

After approval by the Committee, the General Report
and the draft Conventions will be transmitted to the
French Government for communication to all the Govern-
ments with a view to an early convocation of the Interna-
tional Conference on Aerial Private Law.

7. * . . ~

RESOLUTION No. 3.

The Committee of Experts, considering that it is
necessary tO examine in their entirety the problems of
private law raised by air navigation, decides to appoint
four Commissions composed of eleven Members.

Each Commission will make a study of the following
questions:

Ist Commission.
(1) Nationality of aircraft;
(2) Aeronautical register;
(3) Ownership, co-ownership, construction and trans-
fer;
(4) Vested rights, mortgages, privileges and seizures.

2nd Commission

(1) Category of transport (commercial transport, pri-
vate pilots, etc. . . .);

33a

(2) Way-bill;

(3) Responsibility of carriers towards consignors of
goods and towards passengers;

(4) Jettisoning of cargo and general damage;

(5) Hiring of aircraft.

3rd Commission

(1) Damage and responsibility towards third parties
(landing, collision, jettison);

(2) Limits of responsibility (contractual limitation,
abandonment);

(3) Insurance.

4th Commission

(1) Legal status of the commander and crew;

(2) Accidents to the crew, and insurance;

(3) Status of passengers;

(4) Law applicable to acts committed on board the

aircraft.

Each of these Commissions, in examining the items set
down on its Agenda, should take up the matter of diffi-
culties relating to competency, prescription or forfeiture.

The Committee recommends to each of these Commis-
sions, in the complete study it will have to make of the
problems which are confided to it, to bring its examination
to bear in the first place on the following questions:
lst Commission: Aeronautical register, Ownership and

mortgages;
2nd Commission: Way-bill and, eventually, examination
of the modifications to be asked for in
the Paris draft Convention of 1925;
3rd Commission: Damage caused to persons and property
on the surface;
4th Commission: Legal status of the Commander of the
aircraft.
- - - * .

34a
APPENDIX D

COMITE INTERNATIONAL TECHNIQUE
D’EXPERTS JURIDIQUE AERIENS

COMPTE—RENDU
DE LA 2° SESSION

AVRIL 1927

* * * * *

{Compte-rendu provisoire de la deuxiéme seance du CITE-
JA (5 Avril)]

[page 24) M. COGLIOLO (Italie) formule une critique
contre le paragraphé 2 de l’article 3, ainsi rédigé:

“L’absence, l’irrégularité ou la perte de ce “titre, ne pré-
judicie ni a lexistence, ni a la validité “du contrat de
transport”.

On congoit que la perte de la lettre de transport aérien
ne préjudicie pas a l’existence du contrat de transport car il
en est de méme pour la perte d’une lettre de change. Mais,
en ce qui concerne |’absence ou l’irrégularité de la lettre de
transport, M. COGLIOLO doute, pour une raison de
forme et pour une raison de fond, de l’utilité de l’article
qui déclare que cela ne préjudicie pas a l’existence ou 4 le
validité du contrat. La raison de forme est que c’est
diminuer singuliérement la valeur de la lettre de transport
aerien que de dire, dans un article qui régle toute la ques-
tion, que son absence ne préjudicie ni a |’existence, ni a la
validité du contrat de transport. La raison de fond est qu’il
est nécessaire de résoudre la question, trés fréquente en
droit maritime en ce qui concerne le connaissement. M.
COGLIOLO se demande s’il ne serait pas préférable de
dire que le transporteur a le droit de demander 4a |’ex-

35a

péditeur |’établissement de la lettre de transport aérien et
que l’expéditeur a le droit de le demander également, mais
que, pour les transports internationaux, une lettre de
transport aérien est obligatoire.

M. DE VOS, Rapporteur, expose que l’observation de
M. COGLIOLO est précisément un des points qui ent
soulevé le plus de difficultés lors de l’examen par la Com-
mission. Il a para impossible a certaines délégations, et
notamment a la Délégation Britannique, d’introduire
obligation de la lettre de transport aérien pour tous les
transports. Cette Délégation estime trés difficile de faire
accepter par la législation britannique |’établissement
d’une sanction pénale adéquate correspondant a cette
obligation. Les experts britanniques ont fait observer
qu’en n’imposant pas le principe de l’obligation le résultat
pratique serait néanmoins le méme. Pour eux, il serait
possible d’arriver au méme résultat de la maniére suivante:

I°—les transporteurs doivent étre poussés a se servir
d’une lettre de transport aérien chaque fois qu’ils font un
contrat de transport aérien international sans toutefois
qu’il soit rendu illégal de s’en dispenser.

2° —si le transporteur se sert d’une lettre de transport, ce
document doit (sans qu’il soit toutefois illégal de les omet-
tre) contenir certaines mentions essentielles (mentions
numérotées de a) a g) a l’article 7 du projet de convention).

3°—la méthode a adopter pour atteindre ces deux buts
devrait étre de rendre matériellement avantageux aux
transporteurs de faire usage d’une lettre de transport
aérien contenant les mentions essentielles et de les mettre
dans une situation moins favorable s’ils préférent conclure
un contrat de transport sans lettre de transport ou sans les
mentions essentielles.

[page 25] En conséquence, la Délégation Britannique a
proposé a la Commission:

36a

a) que la convention stipule que si un contrat de transport
est conclu, sans l’établissement d’une lettre de transport
aérien contenant les mentions essentielles, le trans-
porteur perdra les avantages que lui sent conférés par
les articles 5, 6 et 7 de l’avant-projet de Convention sur
la responsabilité (sans toutefois porter atteinte aux
autres dispositions dudit avant-projet) et qu’un tel con-
trat, en ce que concerne les matiéres aux-quelles ont
trait los articles précités, est régi par le droit commun.

La sanction sera de cette facon non seulement
automatique, uniforme et universelle, mais elle se
trouvera dans le cadre méme de la Convention.

b) qu’il soit annexé a la Convention un modéle de lettre de
transport dont l’usage serait recommandé.

Il a paru a la Commission que cette conception, trés
différente évidemment des conceptions latines, pouvait
étre fort utile et qu’en acceptant ce minimum d’obliga-
tions, il était possible d’obtenir l’unanimité et de faire
adopter la lettre de transport aérien.

D’autre part, si la mention, au second alinéa de I’article
3, du mot “absence” semble indiquer une contradiction et
que, dés qu’il s’agit de régler l’existence de la lettre de
transport aérien, on ne devrait pas parler de son absence, il
n’y a la qu’une apparence. Le maintien du mot “absence”
indique simplement que la lettre de transport n’est pas
obligatoire et que le transport reste valable méme sans ce
document.

M. PITTARD (Suisse) ajoute que si le mot “absence”
n’était pas maintenu, le transporteur ne ferait pas de lettre
de transport pour échapper a la convention; tandis qu’avec
le maintien du mot “absence” le transporteur reste soumis
a la Convention et l’on vise ainsi le transport privé d’un in-
dividu faisant exceptionnellement un transport contre
remuneration.

37a

M. RIPERT (France) rappelle qu’il a été prévu, par la
Deuxiéme Commission, a l’article 16 de l’avant-projet de
convention, une sanction trés énergique contre celui qui ne
fera pas de lettre de transport: cette sanction consiste en ce
que les dispositions de la convention s’appliqueront 4 lui
en tant qu’elle lui sont défavorables et qu’il ne pourra
réclamer les exonérations contenues dans la Convention.

Le Président propose de réserver le paragraphe 2 de I’ar-
ticle 3 jusqu’a la discussion de l'article 16, dont il vient

d’étre parlé. Il en est ainsi décidé.
* * > a »

[page 27] Le Président passe 4a l’article 7, dont il donne
lecture:

“La lettre de voiture contient les mentions suivantes:

“a) le lieu ot le document a été crée et la date a laquelle
il a été établi;

“b) les point de depart et de destination

“c) litinéraire a suivre, les point d’escale de transborde-
ment:

“d) le [nJom et l’adresse de l’expéditeur;

“e) le [nom] et l’adresse du transporteur;

“f) le [nom] et l’adresse du destinataire, a moins que
l’expéditeur ne se réserve le droit de la désignor
ulterieurement;

“g) la nature de la marchandise

[page 28]

“h) le nombre, le mode d’emballago, les marques par-
ticuliéres ou les numéros des colis;

“i) le poids, la quantité, la contenance ou la dimension
de la marchandise;

“k) le prix du transport, s’il est stipulé, la date et le lieu
de paiement, et la personne qui doit payer;

“l) la désignation par l’expéditeur de la valeur de la
merchandise de |’interét de la livraison;

38a

“m)le nombre d’exemplaires de la lettre de voiture;

“n) les documents transmis au transporteur pour ac-

compagner la lettre de voiture.

“Les mentions indiqués sous les lettres a) 4 g) doivent
étre obligatoirement inscrites dans la lettre “de voiture.”

M. DE VOS, Rapporteur, fait remarquer qu’ a propos
de la convention sur la responsabilité il a été décidé
d’ajouter apres le mot “itinéraire” le met “prévu”, attendu
qu’il n’appartient a personne d’indiquer un itinéraire fixe,
l’itinéraire comprenant : le point de départ, les escales et le
point de destination prévu. Il demande donc qu’il soit ad-
jouté le mot “prévu”.

Le Président interrege le Comité sur ce point. Aucune
objection n’étant faite, il est décidé que le mot “prévu” sera
ajouteé.

= * a * =

[page 30) Le Président donne lécture de l’article 8, ainsi
con¢u :

“La lettre de voiture doit contenir une clause “stipulant
que le transport est soumis au régime de la “responsabilité
établie par la Convention Internationale “du 6 Novembre
1925, ainsi que les dispositions principales “de celle-ci.”

A la suite d’un échange de vues auquel prennent part M.
RICHTER (Allemagne), M. COGLIOLO (Italie) et le
Rapporteur, il est décidé que le texte de l’article 8 sera ainsi
rédigé :

“La lettre de voiture doit centenir une clause stipulant
que le transport est soumis au régime de la responsabilité
établie par la Convention International du.......

* = * se *

[page 40] [Troisieme Séance de CITEJA (6 Avril)]

Le Président soumet au Comité l'article 16, ainsi rédigé :
“Si une lettre de voiture contenant toutes les mentions
indiquées par l’article 7, lettres a) a g), et par l’article 8 n’a

39a

pas été délivrée pour un transport international, le trans-
porteur n’en sera pas moins soumis aux régles de la Con-
vention Internationale sur la responsabilité, mais le
transporteur n’aura pas le droit de se prévaloir des disposi-
tions de ladite Convention qui l’exenérent de se respon-
sabilité ou des fautes de sos préposés ou qui établissent une
limitation de responsabilité.”

M. YOUPIS (Gréce) estime que la sanction prévue par
cet article et qui consiste a priver le transporteur de tous les
avantages de la convention se comprend pour une Com-
pagnie puisante, mais que pour un particulier faisant ac-
cidentellement un transport international de marchandises
l’absence de limitation de la responsabilité serait, a son
avis, une sanction trop séveére.

M. PITTARD (Suisse) ne partage pas set avis. La
limitation de la responabilité a été cevisagée pour amener a
la conclusion d’une assurance, si un transporteur ac-
cidentel de marchandises vont s’assurer, il n’a qu’a limiter
sa responsabilité au moyen d’une lettre de transport. Il y a
la une barriére trés utile obligeant les transporteurs a ren-
trer dans le cadre de la covention.

M. PINEDA DE MONT (Guatémala) appuie cette
maniere de voir.

Le Comité consulté par le Président, décide d’adopter le
text de l’article 16 qu’il a été présente.

Le Président signale au Comité qu’il y a lieu de repren-
dre le paragraphe 2 de I’article 3 qui avait été réserve:

“L’absence, l’irrégularité ou la perte de ce titre, ne pre-
judicie ni a l’existence, ni a la validité du contrat de
transport.”

Le Président rappelle que le Comité est en préscence de
deux propositions:

[page 41]-l’une formulée par M. COGLIOLO, consistant
dans la suppression pure et simple du deuxieme para-
graphe de I’article 3.

40a

—lautre, formulée par le Rapporteur, maintenant l’arti-
cle 3 tel qu’il est présenté, le Sous-Comité de Rédaction de-
vant trouver une rédaction nouvelle atténuée en ce qui
concerne le mot “absence”.

M. DE LAPRADELLE (France) estime que le texte tel
qu’il est rédigé, sans modification, se comprend parfaite-
ment : l’absence, l’irrégularité ou le perte du titre n’atténue
pas l’existence du contrat de transport.

M. AMBROSINI (Italie) propose de supprimer ce deux-
iéme paragraphe et de le mettre dans l’exposé des motifs.

M. DE VOS, Rapporteur, fait remarquer que ce texte
n’est pas une simple explication mais s’impose pour la
traduction en certaines langues, notamment en anglais. Si
le premier alinén est seul traduit, on ne sait pas s’il con-
Stitue Ou non une obligation. La deuxiéme phrase est
nécessaire pour voir que ce n’est pas une obligation.

Le Comité, consulté par le président, repousse la sup-
pression du paragraphe 2 de I’article 3 et veto l’article 3 tel
qu’il a été présenté.

* * * a .

ANNEXE “A”

RAPPORT

DE LA DEUXIEME COMMISSION DU COMITE
INTERNATIONAL TECHNIQUE D’EXPERTS
JURIDIQUES AERIENS SUR LA LETTRE DE

VOITURE AERIENNE

[30 Mars 1927]

* * * * *

[Annexe page 2] La Convention n’impose pas |’obligation
d’une lettre de voiture; mais dés qu’une lettre de voiture ex-
iste, les dispositions de la Convention s’y appliquent.

4la

Cette formule a été admise par la Commission en vue
d’aboutir a une adoption unanime des régles de la Conven-
tion, bien que certains membres aient été d’avis que le
transport devrait étre constaté obligatoirement par une let-
tre de voiture. Le systeme adopté constitue un minimum,
rencontrant lopinion émise notamment par les Déléga-
tions allemande et britannique qui ont estimé qu’en cette
matiére il convient de laisser les parties libres de
sauvegarder leurs intéréts.

Le délégué de la Grande-Bretagne a fait ressortir en
outre la difficulté qui existe dans certains pays de sanction-
ner efficacement cette obligation.

- » a * *

[Annexe page 3] 4°—En ce qui concerne les mentions a
insérer dans la lettre de voiture, la Commission a adopteé le
systeme suivant :

Il existe dans certains pays des difficultés pour édicter
des sanctions efficaces en vue d’assurer l’exécution de cer-
taines dispositions de la Convention. II ne sert de rien de
rendre ces dispositions obligatoires si une sanction adé-
quate n’y correspond. Ces dispositions peuvent, du reste,
étre trés utiles.

Parmi les mentions a insérer dans la lettre de voiture, il y
a celles qui indiquent qu’il s’agit d’un document couvrant
un transport international, celles prévues sous les lettres
a)—f); elles sont [Annexe page 4] indispensables au point
de vue de l’exécution de la Convention.

Il en est de éme de la mention sous la lettre g) : la nature
de la marchandise, parce que des prohibitions peuvent étre
édictées par certains pays quant a l’entrée ou a la sortie de
marchandises.

Les autres mentions de h) a n) présentent une utilité in-
contestable, mais leur Omission ne peut étre, suivant cer-
taines conceptions nationales, utilement sanctionnée. II est

42a

hautement recommandable que la lettre de voiture porte
ces mentions, mais leur insertion dépendra surtout de I’in-
terét méme qu’ont les parties de les indiquer dans le docu-
ment formant titre.

Ces mentions, du reste, ne sont pas limitatives. I] peut
étre utile, par example, dans certains cas, de donner I’in-
dication de l’appareil qui transporte la marchandise.

* e * a *

[Annexe page 7] 10°—Quant aux

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0623%3A8. Public record. Not legal advice.