• CIVIL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Barclay v British Airways plc

In the instant case, the claimant slipped on a standard fitting plastic strip embedded in the floor of the aircraft. The issue was whether, where injury was caused by an event constituted by some contact or interaction between the passenger and the aeroplane in its normal state, such an event was an "accident" within the meaning of art 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999, which had force of law in England by virtue of Sch 1B to the Carriage of Air Act 1961. Held, Art 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 contemplated, by the term "accident", a distinct event, not being any part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft, which happened independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger. There was no accident in the present case that was external to the claimant, no event which happened independently of anything done or omitted by her. All that happened was that her foot had come into contact with the inert strip and she had fallen. Appeal dismissed.

• COMMERCIAL

US Supreme Court

ALTRIA GROUP, INC., et al. v. GOOD et al.

Respondent-smokers, who have for over 15 years smoked "light" cigarettes manufactured by Petitioner-Cigarrette Company filed suit alleging that the Petitioners violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) through fraudulent advertisements conveying the message that the Petitioner's "light" cigarettes deliver less tar and nicotine to consumers than regular brands despite petitioners' knowledge that the message was untrue. District Court entered summary judgment in favor of petitioners on the ground that respondents' state-law claim is pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. The Court of Appeals reversed that judgment. Hence, present appeal. Held, when the text of an express pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily "accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption. The Labeling Act's stated purposes are to inform the public of the health risks of smoking while protecting commerce and the economy from the ill effects of nonuniform requirements to the extent consistent with the first goal. Neither the Labeling Act's pre-emption provision nor the Federal Trade Commission's actions in this field pre-empt respondents' state-law fraud claim. Therefore, judgement of lower court affirmed.