## Facts

- Christine K. Schroeder traveled on Lufthansa Flight 431 from Chicago to Frankfurt with a high school group and chaperones.
- During the flight, crew members believed Schroeder had consumed alcohol and was loud, disruptive, and potentially unmanageable.
- The captain diverted the flight to Gander, Newfoundland, based on perceived safety and order concerns.
- Lufthansa requested assistance from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
- RCMP officers boarded, removed Schroeder, and detained her under their own authority.
- Schroeder sued Lufthansa under the Warsaw Convention, asserting slander, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to warn, and alleging willful misconduct to avoid the Convention’s liability cap.

## Issues

1. Whether Lufthansa could be held liable for the RCMP’s arrest and detention of Schroeder after the diversion.
2. Whether Lufthansa’s own conduct (including requesting police assistance and any on-board restraint) could support tort liability, or was privileged and justified as a reasonable response to an in-flight disturbance.
3. Whether the court needed to decide Warsaw Convention questions about emotional-injury recovery and the Convention’s liability cap if Lufthansa was not otherwise liable.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Lufthansa.
- Lufthansa was not liable for the RCMP’s actions because the police acted independently under governmental authority and were not controlled or directed by the airline.
- Lufthansa’s decision to divert and seek police assistance was justified under the circumstances as a reasonable safety and order measure, defeating the asserted tort theories against the airline.
- Because Schroeder failed to establish actionable liability by Lufthansa, the court did not reach broader Warsaw Convention questions concerning emotional-distress-only damages or the liability cap.

## Legal Principles

- An air carrier may take reasonable steps to maintain safety and order on an aircraft, including seeking law enforcement assistance when a passenger appears disruptive.
- A private party is generally not vicariously liable for the acts of independent law enforcement officers absent proof the private party directed or controlled the officers’ conduct.
- Appellate courts may affirm on narrower, dispositive grounds and decline to decide damages or treaty-interpretation questions unnecessary to the result.

## Conclusion

The court upheld summary judgment for Lufthansa because the airline’s response to perceived in-flight disruption was justified and the RCMP’s subsequent detention decisions were attributable to independent governmental authority rather than airline control, making it unnecessary to resolve additional Warsaw Convention damages and cap questions.


Schroeder v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 875 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1989)