Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.

1989-04-18

Headline: Airline ticket font-size fight: Court upheld treaty damage limits and ruled 8-point ticket notice does not strip carriers of liability cap after the deadly Korean Air crash.

Holding: The Court held that the Warsaw Convention does not remove the treaty's passenger-damage limit because a carrier used 8-point instead of 10-point notice, and it affirmed the lower courts' judgment preserving the liability cap.

Real World Impact:

Allows airlines to retain treaty damage caps despite smaller ticket print.
Limits passengers’ ability to bypass airline liability caps by ticket formatting.
Makes courts follow treaty text over private carrier agreements for sanctions.

Topics: airline liability, ticket notices, international treaty law, air crash wrongful death

Summary

Background

Survivors of victims of a 1983 Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 disaster sued the airline for wrongful death. The dispute focused on whether a treaty limit on passenger damages should be lost because the airline printed the treaty notice in 8-point type instead of the 10-point type set out in a private industry agreement. Lower courts denied the challenge and the question reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court held that the text of the international treaty (the Warsaw Convention) does not make a carrier lose the treaty damage limit simply because a ticket's notice was printed in smaller type. The majority explained that Article 3 distinguishes between no ticket at all and a ticket with an irregularity, and that an irregularity does not automatically eliminate the treaty's liability cap. The Court also said a private industry agreement and U.S. FAA rules do not themselves add a treaty sanction removing the limit.

Real world impact

As a result, airlines in this case kept the treaty damage cap and survivors cannot use font size alone to void that cap. The ruling affects how courts treat ticket wording and which remedies are available for carriers' regulatory violations. The decision affirms the lower courts' outcome and resolves a split among appellate courts about whether small print can strip treaty liability limits.

Dissents or concurrances

A separate opinion joined by four Justices agreed with the outcome but argued the treaty's drafting history supports treating inadequate notice as forfeiting the limit and said the 8-point notice here was nonetheless adequate.