Project #160218 - Private International Aviation Law

Law Tutors

Subject Law
Due By (Pacific Time) 12/19/2016 12:00 am


I will upload the old finals of the exams, it's almost the same as the one that I want you to answer. so take a look at the files and make sure to paraphrase the answers. it's going to be 7 to 9 pages. Make SURE to do not copy the answers from the files that I sent. 

ask me if there is question   




Your answers should be supported by references to the applicable cases and treaty provisions. You do not need to include the actual citation to cases. In other words, it is good enough just to say “Air Franks v. Saks”; you don’t need to include the reporter cite or year of the decision;

g You only need to answer three of the four questions below.


  1. You are an associate at a law firm that represents plaintiffs in personal injury cases. Your partner has asked you to write a memo explaining the applicable rules and case law for a potential case the firm is thinking of accepting that involves both damage to checked baggage (approximately $1,200.00 in damage) and personal injury (skull fractures and post-traumatic stress disorder). The incident involves a crash that occurred two weeks ago at O’Hare Airport when United Airlines’ pilots landed the plane coming from Paris too far down the runway and had to veer off the runway to avoid hitting another plane. The potential plaintiff is a principle and permanent French citizen and was due to return to France three days after the crash. But she is still in Chicago receiving treatment for her injuries.

    The memo should discuss whether there are viable causes of action for the potential client’s property damage and personal injury claims; where the case can be brought; potential liability limitations; what types of damages are and are not recoverable; whether the client could recover costs of the litigation; when the case must be brought; and any other major issues that will need to be investigated and potentially litigated.

  2. Early this year, Bob Boeing booked a flight with his wife around the world. They flew out of Seattle, Washington with planned stops in London, Egypt, India, Australia, China, Japan, and then back home. The trip was to take 3 months, with an approximately 2- week layover in each location. While in Australia, they decided to spend a week in Perth, on the west coast, so they called their travel agent in Seattle who had arranged their trip and asked her to book them a flight from Sydney to Perth. The travel agent booked them on a Qantas flight.

    During the flight, the aircraft encountered horrible turbulence. Bob and his wife were so shaken that they cancelled the rest of their trip and flew home. Luckily, they did not suffer any physical injuries. But because they were having nightmares and flashbacks, they sought treatment from psychologists and psychiatrists who have diagnosed them with post-traumatic stress disorder.



The Boeings have sued Qantas in Seattle federal court. They alleged the pilots were aware of the turbulence but failed to warn the passengers of it. Qantas has retained your law firm to represent it and wants to know if the Boeings have viable claims and, if so, what law will apply and whether the Seattle federal court has jurisdiction over their claims.

  1. You and your friend are flying back to Chicago from Paris on Lose-Your-Luggage Airways. It’s a cheap ticket, but the odds the airlines will lose/damage your checked luggage is almost 100%. So your friend has asked you to explain what the Montreal Convention requires you to do if that happens, i.e., how a complaint must be made, when that complaint must be made, what happens if those time limits are not complied with, who has the burden of proof, etc. Also, your friend is bringing very expensive wine back from Paris. So he wants to know whether there is any liability limitation if the airlines loses/damages the wine and, if so, whether any exceptions exist.

  2. Explain the concept of a “pass-through” provision and give three examples from either the Warsaw or Montreal Convention of such a provision. 


out of 1971 reviews

out of 766 reviews

out of 1164 reviews

out of 721 reviews

out of 1600 reviews

out of 770 reviews

out of 766 reviews

out of 680 reviews