In litigation, lawyers need to rely on case law to support the outcome they are asking the court take. Lawyers will often bri

Olympic Airways v. Husain

Case Brief

Who are the parties to

the case?

What is the citation of

the case?

What are the basic facts

of the case?

What

D

r. H

anson

’s

estate argue?

What did Olympic Air

argue?

What did the court

decide?

Did the court apply

statutory law, case law

or both in reaching its

decision?

References

LAW204

–

Business Law I

Unit 1 Assignment Case Brief Template

Olympic Airways v. Husain Case Brief

Who are the parties to

the case?

What is the citation of

the case?

What are the basic facts

of the case?

What Dr. Hanson’s

estate argue?

What did Olympic Air

argue?

What did the court

decide?

Did the court apply

statutory law, case law

or both in reaching its

decision?

References

LAW204 – Business Law I

Unit 1 Assignment Case Brief Template

The Global Business Environment

Olympic Airways v. Husain

Case Brief

Just as statutes m

ay require judicial interpretation when a dispute arises, so may treaties. The

techniques that

court

use in interpreting treaties correspond closely to the statutory interpretation

techniques discussed in this chapter. Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S.

644 (U.S. Sup. Ct.

2004), furnishes a useful example.

In Olympic Airways, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with an interpretation question

regarding a treaty, the Warsaw Convention, which deals with airlines’ liability for passenger

deaths or injuries on

international flights. Numerous nations (including the United States)

subscribe to the Warsaw Convention, a key provision of which provides that in regard to

international flights, the airline “shall be liable for damages sustained in the event of the deat

h or

wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident

which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of

the operations of embarking or disembarking.” A separate provi

sion imposes limits on the

amount of money damages to which a liable airline may be subjected.

The Olympic Airways case centered around the death of Dr. Abid Hanson, a severe asthmatic, on

an international flight operated by Olympic. Smoking was permitted

on the flight. Hanson was

given a seat in the nonsmoking section, but his seat was only three rows in front of the smoking

section. Because Hanson was extremely sensitive to secondhand smoke, he and his wife, Rubina

Husain, requested various times that he

be allowed, for health reasons, to move to a seat farther

away from the smoking section. Each time, the request was denied by an Olympic flight

attendant. When smoke from the smoking section began to give Hanson difficulty, he used a new

inhaler and walke

d toward the front of the plane to get some fresher air. Hanson went into

respiratory distress, whereupon his wife and a doctor who was on board gave him shots of

epinephrine from an emergency kit that Hanson carried. Although the doctor administered CPR

a

nd oxygen when Hanson collapsed, Hanson died. Husain, acting as personal representative of

her late husband’s estate, sued Olympic in federal court on the theory that the Warsaw

Convention made Olympic liable for Hanson’s death. The federal district court

and the court of

appeals ruled in favor of Husain.

In considering Olympic’s appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the key issue was one of

treaty interpretation: whether the flight attendant’s refusals to reseat Hanson constituted an

“accident which c

aused” the death of Hanson. Noting that the Warsaw Convention itself did not

define “accident” and that different dictionary definitions of “accident”

The Global Business Environment

Olympic Airways v. Husain Case Brief

Just as statutes may require judicial interpretation when a dispute arises, so may treaties. The

techniques that court use in interpreting treaties correspond closely to the statutory interpretation

techniques discussed in this chapter. Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644 (U.S. Sup. Ct.

2004), furnishes a useful example.

In Olympic Airways, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with an interpretation question

regarding a treaty, the Warsaw Convention, which deals with airlines’ liability for passenger

deaths or injuries on international flights. Numerous nations (including the United States)

subscribe to the Warsaw Convention, a key provision of which provides that in regard to

international flights, the airline “shall be liable for damages sustained in the event of the death or

wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident

which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of

the operations of embarking or disembarking.” A separate provision imposes limits on the

amount of money damages to which a liable airline may be subjected.

The Olympic Airways case centered around the death of Dr. Abid Hanson, a severe asthmatic, on

an international flight operated by Olympic. Smoking was permitted on the flight. Hanson was

given a seat in the nonsmoking section, but his seat was only three rows in front of the smoking

section. Because Hanson was extremely sensitive to secondhand smoke, he and his wife, Rubina

Husain, requested various times that he be allowed, for health reasons, to move to a seat farther

away from the smoking section. Each time, the request was denied by an Olympic flight

attendant. When smoke from the smoking section began to give Hanson difficulty, he used a new

inhaler and walked toward the front of the plane to get some fresher air. Hanson went into

respiratory distress, whereupon his wife and a doctor who was on board gave him shots of

epinephrine from an emergency kit that Hanson carried. Although the doctor administered CPR

and oxygen when Hanson collapsed, Hanson died. Husain, acting as personal representative of

her late husband’s estate, sued Olympic in federal court on the theory that the Warsaw

Convention made Olympic liable for Hanson’s death. The federal district court and the court of

appeals ruled in favor of Husain.

In considering Olympic’s appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the key issue was one of

treaty interpretation: whether the flight attendant’s refusals to reseat Hanson constituted an

“accident which caused” the death of Hanson. Noting that the Warsaw Convention itself did not

define “accident” and that different dictionary definitions of “accident”

Due Date: 11:59 p.m. EST, Sunday of Unit 1 Points: 100

Overview:

In litigation, lawyers need to rely on case law to support the outcome they are asking the court take. Lawyers will often “brief” a case to obtain a better understanding of the case. In other words, lawyers will use a specific format to outline the most important points in a court’s decision. This activity will also assist you in understanding the cases discussed in this class.

Instructions:

• Listen to the oral arguments in the Olympic Airways v. Husain case. Read about the case.

• Read about how to brief a case. • Using the template provided, complete a “brief” about the case, including the

following: o Who are the parties to the case? o What is the citation of the case? o What are the basic facts of the case? o What did Dr. Hanson’s estate argue? o What did Olympic Air argue? o What did the court decide? o Did the court apply statutory law, case law or both in reaching its decision?

Requirements:

• Use APA format for non-legal sources such as the textbook. Use Bluebook citation format for any legal citations.

o Include the resource to the case and oral arguments. o You do not need to use any sources other than your text and the audio

recording of the oral arguments. • Submit a Word document using the case brief template. • Maximum two pages in length, excluding the Reference page.

Be sure to read the criteria below by which your work will be evaluated before you write and again after you write.

LAW204 – Business Law I

Briefing a Case

Evaluation Rubric for Briefing a Case Assignment

CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement

Proficient Exemplary

0 – 44 Points 45 – 59 Points 60 – 74 Points

75 Points

Case Brief Does not concisely and clearly answer questions about the case. Case brief is not succinct.

Somewhat concisely and clearly answers some questions about the case. Case brief is not overly succinct.

Mostly concisely, succinctly, and clearly answers all questions about the case.

Concisely, succinctly, and clearly answers all questions about the case.

0 – 5 points 6 – 7 points 8 – 9 points 10 points Paper Length More than 2

pages n/a n/a 2 pages or less

0 – 8 points 9 – 11 points 12 – 14 points

15 points

Clear and Professional Writing and APA/Bluebook Format

Errors impede professional presentation; guidelines not followed.

Significant errors that do not impede professional presentation.

Few errors that do not impede professional presentation.

Writing and format are clear, professional, APA/Bluebook compliant, and error free.