Cohen v. Varig Airlines

I dissent and vote to affirm for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Danzig, J., at Trial Term, except as indicated at the end of this memorandum.

In my view, there was sufficient evidence in the record for the trial court to find in the unique and unusual factual pattern under review that the act of defendant, by its employee, in refusing to remove plaintiffs’ luggage from its plane *999in Rio de Janeiro constituted "wilful misconduct” within the purview of subdivision (1) of article 25 of the Warsaw Convention (49 US Stat 3020; Grey v American Airlines, 227 F2d 282). Moreover, I agree with…