## Facts

- Andrew Gluckman arranged for his dog, Floyd (a golden retriever), to be transported as excess baggage on an American Airlines flight from Phoenix to New York.
- Before travel, Gluckman asked if Floyd could ride in the cabin; an airline agent stated Floyd would have to travel in the baggage/cargo compartment and that Gluckman could buy a crate and pay a transport fee.
- Gluckman alleged the agent did not warn him of risks associated with the cargo compartment, including lack of air conditioning on the ground, inability to monitor or control cargo temperature, and potential for unsafe external heat.
- At Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport, Gluckman paid the transport fee and did not declare a higher value for the dog.
- Due to mechanical difficulties, the aircraft returned to the gate and remained delayed for over an hour while Floyd stayed in the unairconditioned compartment in high heat.
- Floyd suffered heat stroke and died.
- Gluckman sued for breach of the carrier’s obligation to transport safely and asserted tort claims seeking damages for emotional distress, loss of companionship, and the dog’s pain and suffering.
- American relied on its filed tariff and ticket terms, including a $1,250 limitation of liability for “property” and a one-year claims period, and sought dismissal and/or partial summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether American’s tariff and ticket terms limiting liability to $1,250 for checked “property” were enforceable against the owner for the death of a dog, including whether the limitation was reasonably communicated to the passenger.
2. Whether New York law permits tort recovery for an owner’s emotional distress or loss of companionship arising from injury to or death of a pet.
3. Whether a plaintiff may recover damages for a pet’s own pain and suffering as a separate claim.

## Decision

- The court granted American’s motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court dismissed claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of companionship, and damages for the dog’s pain and suffering.
- The court denied summary judgment on American’s request to cap recovery at $1,250 on the contract/breach-of-obligation theory, holding that enforceability of the limitation turned on disputed facts regarding reasonable notice.

## Legal Principles

- Common carriers may limit liability by tariff or contract terms, but a limitation is not enforceable as a matter of law if there are material fact disputes over whether it was reasonably communicated to the passenger.
- Under New York law, companion animals are treated as property for purposes of damages, and owners generally may not recover for emotional distress or loss of companionship based solely on harm to the animal.
- New York law does not recognize a separate “survival”-type claim on behalf of an animal for the animal’s own pain and suffering.

## Conclusion

The court rejected tort-based efforts to obtain emotional-distress, companionship, and animal suffering damages for a pet’s death, while allowing the contract-based claim to continue because the record did not establish, as a matter of law, that the airline’s $1,250 tariff limitation had been adequately disclosed to bind the passenger.


Gluckman v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)