DOLLY FEINSTEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
NORTHEAST AIRLINES, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION DULY AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A passenger sued an airline for loss of luggage after being involuntarily removed from an oversold flight. The trial court awarded damages limited to $100 under the airline's tariff and rejected her claim for punitive damages for inconvenience and humiliation.
The $100 tariff liability limitation applies to the lost baggage claim because the transportation area was not exceeded, no unusual delay occurred, and the luggage preceded the passenger to the destination. Punitive damages for inconvenience and humiliation are not recoverable because the passenger's ticket was not cancelled and suitable alternative transportation was provided within a reasonable time.
“The trial judge was eminently correct in ruling out the claim of punitive damages for inconvenience, etc. Plaintiff's ticket was not cancelled. Other suitable transportation was arranged and effected for her on another plane within a reasonable period.”
Establishes that punitive damages for inconvenience are not available when the airline provides timely substitute transportation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFeinstein purchased a ticket from New York to Miami, checked three bags, and boarded her scheduled flight. The plane was oversold, and she was removed…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, the plaintiff below, purchased a ticket for transportation from New York to Miami. She checked three bags and boarded the designated plane, scheduled to depart at 9:30 A.M. The plane appears to have been oversold. Plaintiff was put off. The plane departed a half hour or more late. Plaintiff’s bags were not removed. Several hours later plaintiff was furnished transportation to Miami on another line. When she arrived in Miami two • of her bags were there but the third could not be found. Plaintiff sued the defendant carrier for loss of her luggage, and sought punitive damages for inconvenience and humiliation for being removed from the plane after having been given a reservation. The trial court struck the allegations on the latter claim, and, on trial, directed a verdict for the plaintiff for $100 which was the amount of liability for the loss as specified in an applicable tariff regulation, plus $3 expended for a long distance telephone call. Plaintiff has appealed the consequent judgment. Appellant conceded the tariff limitation of $100 for loss of the bag and its contents, but contended the limitation was not applicable on the facts. The argument lacks merit. The area of transportation was not exceeded with reference to the luggage. No unusual delay occurred. The luggage preceded the passenger to the destination. The carrier’s liability continued while holding the luggage at the terminus of the trip for the several hours until the passenger arrived.1 *489The trial judge was eminently correct in ruling out the claim of punitive damages for inconvenience, etc. Plaintiff’s ticket was not cancelled. Other suitable transportation was arranged and effected for her on another plane within a reasonable period. See Migoski v. Eastern Air Lines, Fla.1953, 63. So.2d 634; Lichten v. Eastern Air Lines, 2 Cir.1951, 189 F.2d 939. Cf. Navarro v. American Air Lines, 208 Misc. 127, 142 N.Y.S.2d 725.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. Lippert, 609 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1992)…but also constitutes the law which governs the air carrier’s liability for any loss or damage to property. Blair v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 344 F.Supp. 360 (S.D.Fla.1972), affirmed, 477 F. 2d 564 (5th Cir.1973); Feinstein v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., 150 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The Department of Transportation, to whom Congress transferred authority to regulate aviation, has determined that without baggage liability limitations, an airline’s exposure for the loss of valuable items, such as jewelry, woul…
Authorities Cited
- Lichten v. E. Airlines, Inc., 189 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1951)