## Facts

- Valerie Hermien Saks flew on an Air France flight from Paris to Los Angeles.
- During descent, she experienced severe pressure and pain in her left ear; she later was diagnosed as permanently deaf in that ear.
- Saks sued, alleging her injury was caused by negligent maintenance and operation of the aircraft’s pressurization system.
- The action proceeded under the Warsaw Convention, Article 17, which imposes carrier liability for passenger injury only if an “accident” caused the damage on board or during embarking/disembarking.
- Air France moved for summary judgment, arguing the pressurization system functioned normally and therefore no Article 17 “accident” occurred.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Air France; the Ninth Circuit reversed, treating normal cabin pressure changes as an “accident” and reasoning the Convention regime imposed liability for injuries proximately caused by risks inherent in air travel.

## Issues

1. Under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, does “accident” mean an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger, excluding injuries caused by the passenger’s internal reaction to normal aircraft operation?
2. Does Article 17 impose liability for injuries resulting from normal cabin pressurization changes absent an unusual or unexpected malfunction or event?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated summary judgment for Air France.
- The Court held that Article 17 liability arises only when the injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to the passenger.
- The Court concluded that normal cabin pressurization changes during descent, when the system operates as designed, are not an Article 17 “accident,” even if a passenger suffers injury.

## Legal Principles

- An Article 17 “accident” is an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.
- The Article 17 inquiry focuses on the causal event, not the injury itself; the “accident” must be the cause of the damage.
- The use of “accident” in Article 17 (as contrasted with broader terms such as “occurrence” elsewhere in the Convention) indicates that not every on-board injury triggers liability.
- The Montreal Agreement increased liability limits and waived certain defenses but did not remove Article 17’s threshold requirement that an “accident” caused the injury.
- Definitions drawn from aircraft-accident investigation materials are not controlling for Warsaw Convention liability because they serve different purposes and operate in different legal contexts.
- Uniform interpretation of treaty terms is a central objective; courts should construe Article 17 consistently with internationally shared understandings of “accident” as requiring an abnormal or unexpected external event.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a carrier is liable under Warsaw Convention Article 17 only when a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual external event, and that an injury stemming from a passenger’s internal reaction to normal cabin pressurization during routine flight operations is not caused by an “accident.”


Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985)