Legal Opinion

Prescod v. AMR, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 19, 2004No. 02-55097PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

For most travelers affected by air carriers’ misplacement of luggage, the ineon-venience is a fleeting nuisance. In the case before us, however, the district court found that the defendant Airlines’ failure to ensure that Caroline Neischer’s bag remained in her possession was a substantial cause of Neischer’s death nine days after the bag’s confiscation, because the bag contained “a life-sustaining breathing device and related medicine.” The defendants appeal this determination, challenging whether' Neischer’s death resulted from an “accident” as defined by the Warsaw Convention,1 and, if so,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Air France v. SaksSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Olympic Airways v. HusainSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Husain v. Olympic AirwaysCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  4. Richard C. Marotte, Sr. v. American Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
  5. New v. Consolidated Rock Products Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re GirardiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
  2. Phifer v. ICELANDAIRCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  3. Prescod v. Amr, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  4. Twardowski v. American AirlinesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  5. Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2012

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API