ÿWPC> …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµbùw@ 4A U 0ˆd 0Dì UF0 0`v 0JÖ  0T( 0^| 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 0¶ 1uF 0d» BU><ÂzU6< D3rB)¥DCÎ 0@ AMQU*ž)È:ñ+v~HvÓÆ AO™Æè 0D® D/ò B!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò- ù- ã Dä Uå Uæ šç Dè é Dê ë Ó€õ DÒ ÔøP3|xõ (8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó`.Courier New Regular(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman ¸Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌÓ&` °‚X.hÀp”X&Ó< Œ 9p`(Courier New$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌNovemberÏ25,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔThis€section€has€been€recodified€without€substantive€change€as€49ÏU.S.C.S.€ðð€41713(b)(1).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔSince€the€plaintiffs€in€the€case€before€this€Court€also€do€notÏseek€punitive€damages,€it€is€not€necessary€to€consider,€at€this€time,Ïwhether€a€claim€for€punitive€damages€is€preempted€by€the€ADA.€€òòCf.óó€òòTravelÏAll€Over€the€Worldóó,€73€F.3d€at€1432€n.€8€(concluding€that€the€ADAÏpreempts€punitive€damages€claims).ÌPtPtfHHÚ(ÿáÿáùE1À˜ýHHŽxЀxh'dHStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ ÷· XXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÖ€(ÖÔ€)ÔÞ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNovember€25,Ï1996à àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòà àà àFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€.0,A1-j|‰¿` à. `€€@ÿRßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌPHYLLIS€KNOPP€AND€HUSBAND,à à(ÌROBERT€KNOPP,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,à à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Davidson€LawÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€Barbara€N.€Haynes,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌAMERICAN€AIRLINES,€INC.,à àà à(€€No.€01S01„9507„CV„00102ÌINTERNATIONAL€TOTAL€SERVICES,à à(ÌINC.,€AND€JAMES€DAVIDSON,€JR.,(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendants„Appellants.à à(ÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs„Appelleesóó:à àà àòòFor€Defendants„Appellantsóó:ÌÌFrank€C.€Ingrahamà àà àà àà àKenneth€A.€WeberÌNashvilleà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€M.€Doran,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àManier,€Herod,€HollabaughÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à&€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌÒ € ÒÒ , Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTyree€Harris,€IVÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLewis,€King,€Krieg,€Waldrop€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à&ÏCatronÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKatherine€A.€BrownÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBaker,€Donelson,€Bearman€&Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCaldwellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌAFFIRMED;€CASE€REMANDED€TO€ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒTRIAL€COURT.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.Ì›ÌÓ` °‚X.h—XÓà àÓÓThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€holding€that€the€plaintiffs'€state€common„Ïlaw€negligence€and€contract€claims,€based€on€the€allegationÏthat€the€defendants€failed€to€properly€assist€the€plaintiffÏPhyllis€Knopp€while€she€was€changing€planes€in€Nashville,€areÏnot€preempted€by€the€Federal€Airline€Deregulation€Act€of€1978Ïœ("ADA"),›€49€U.S.C.€App.€ðð€1301€òòet€seq.óó€€The€trial€court€hadÏheld€that€the€ADA€preempted€the€claims€and€granted€theÏdefendants'€motion€for€summary€judgment€dismissing€the€suit€asÏto€all€defendants.€€The€decision€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÏreversing€the€judgment€entered€in€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ì€€Ìò òà àó óPlaintiffs€(appellees€on€this€appeal)€Phyllis€KnoppÏand€her€husband,€Robert€Knopp,€sued€defendants€(appellants)ÏAmerican€Airlines,€Inc.€("American"),€International€TotalÏServices,€Inc.€("ITS"),€and€James€Davidson,€Jr.,€for€personalÏinjuries€sustained€by€Mrs.€Knopp€when€she€fell€from€anÍelectric€cart€in€the€Nashville€airport.€€Mrs.€Knopp€was€aÏpassenger€on€an€American€flight€from€San€Antonio€to€NorfolkÏwhich€required€a€change€of€planes€in€Nashville.€€She€had€madeÏprior€arrangements€with€American€for€a€wheelchair€to€beÏavailable€to€transport€her€between€gates€in€Nashville.€ÏHowever,€when€she€arrived€no€wheelchair€was€provided.€ÏInstead,€she€was€directed€to€an€electric€cart€driven€byÏDavidson,€an€employee€of€ITS,€which,€pursuant€to€a€contractÏwith€American,€provided€such€services€for€its€passengers.€€TheÏplaintiffs€base€their€claims€on€the€allegation€that€AmericanÏbreached€its€agreement€with€Mrs.Knopp€to€provide€a€wheelchairÏand€that€all€the€defendants€were€negligent€in€the€operation€ofÏthe€cart.ÌÌà àThe€defendants€assert€that€the€plaintiffs'€claimsÏare€preempted€by€ðð€1305(a)(1)× ƒ1 ××  ×€of€the€ADA,€which€provides€inÏpertinent€part:ÌÓÓÌÌà8 à[N]o€state€.€.€.€shall€enact€or€enforceÏany€law,€rule,€regulation,€standard,€orÍother€provision€having€the€force€andÏeffect€of€law€relating€to€rates,€routes,Ïor€services€of€any€carrier€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€considered€theÏscope€of€the€ADA's€preemption€of€state€law€in€two€recentÏopinions.€€In€òòMorales€v.€Trans€World€Airlines,€Inc.óó,€504€U.S.Ï373,€112€S.Ct.€2031,€119€L.Ed.2d€157€(1992),€the€Court€heldÏthat€the€ADA€"pre„empts€the€States€from€prohibiting€allegedlyÏdeceptive€airline€fare€advertisements€through€enforcement€ofÏtheir€general€consumer€protection€statutes."€òòId.óó€at€378,€112ÏS.Ct.€at€2034.€The€Court€began€its€analysis€by€reviewing€theÏhistory€of€the€ADA:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àPrior€to€1978,€the€Federal€AviationÏAct€of€1958€(FAA)€.€.€.€gave€the€CivilÏAeronautics€Board€(CAB)€authority€toÏregulate€interstate€air€fares€and€to€takeÏadministrative€action€against€certainÏdeceptive€trade€practices.€€It€did€not,Ïhowever,€expressly€pre„empt€stateÏregulation,€and€contained€a€"savingsÏclause"€providing€that€"[n]othing€.€.€.Ïin€this€chapter€shall€in€any€way€abridgeÏor€alter€the€remedies€now€existing€atÏcommon€law€or€by€statute,€but€theÏprovisions€of€this€chapter€are€inÏaddition€to€such€remedies."€€49ÏU.S.C.App.€ðð€1506.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àIn€1978,€however,€Congress,Ïdetermining€that€"maximum€reliance€onÏcompetitive€market€forces"€would€bestÏfurther€"efficiency,€innovation,€and€lowÏprices"€as€well€as€"variety€[and]€qualityÏ.€.€.€of€air€transportation€services,"Ïenacted€the€Airline€Deregulation€ActÏ(ADA).€€49€U.S.C.App.€ðððð€1302(a)(4),Ï1302(a)(9).€€To€ensure€that€the€StatesÏwould€not€undo€federal€deregulation€withÏregulation€of€their€own,€the€ADA€includedÏa€pre„emption€provision,€prohibiting€theÏStates€from€enforcing€any€law€"relatingÏto€rates,€routes,€or€services"€of€any€airÏcarrier.€€49€U.S.C.App.€ðð€1305(a)(1).€ÏThe€ADA€retained€the€CAB's€previousÏenforcement€authority€regarding€deceptiveÏtrade€practices€(which€was€transferred€toÏthe€Department€of€Transportation€(DOT)Ïwhen€the€CAB€was€abolished€in€1985)€andÏit€also€did€not€repeal€or€alter€theÏsaving€clause€in€the€prior€law.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óóÌ€Ìà àThe€Court€then€examined€the€language€of€the€ADAÏpreemption€provision.€€The€Court€emphasized€that,€for€purposesÏof€that€case,€the€key€phrase€was€"relating€to."€€These€words,Ïthe€Court€said,€"express€a€broad€pre„emptive€purpose."€€òòId.óó€atÏ384,€112€S.Ct.€at€2037.€€The€Court€defined€the€"relating€to"Ïlanguage€as€"having€a€connection€with€or€reference€to€airlineÏ'rates,€routes,€or€services.'"€€òòId.óó€€The€Court€rejected€theÍargument€that€the€ADA€"only€pre„empts€the€States€from€actuallyÏprescribing€rates,€routes,€or€services"€because€thatÏinterpretation€"simply€reads€the€words€'relating€to'€out€ofÏthe€statute."€€òòId.óó€ÌÌà àBecause€the€state€regulations€at€issue€in€that€caseÏreferred€to€air€fares,€the€Court€concluded€that€they€"relateÏto"€airline€rates.€€òòId.óó€at€388,€112€S.Ct.€at€2039.€€The€CourtÏalso€found€that€the€"relating€to"€language€was€broad€enough€toÏinclude€economic€impact:€€"In€any€event,€beyond€theÏguidelines'€express€reference€to€fares,€it€is€clear€as€anÏeconomic€matter€that€state€restrictions€on€fare€advertisingÏhave€the€forbidden€significant€effect€upon€fares."€€òòId.óó€€TheÏCourt€acknowledged,€however,€that€the€ADA€does€not€preempt€allÏstate€laws€as€applied€to€airlines:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[W]e€do€not€.€.€.€set€out€on€a€road€thatÏleads€to€pre„emption€of€state€lawsÏagainst€gambling€and€prostitution€asÏapplied€to€airlines.€€Nor€need€we€addressÏwhether€state€regulation€of€the€nonpriceÏaspects€of€fare€advertising€(for€example,Ïstate€laws€preventing€obscene€depictions)Ïwould€similarly€"relat[e]€to"€rates;€theÏconnection€would€obviously€be€far€moreÏtenuous.€.€.€.€"[S]ome€state€actions€mayÍaffect€[airline€fares]€in€too€tenuous,Ïremote,€or€peripheral€a€manner"€to€haveÏpre„emptive€effect."ÌÌÌ€ÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€390,€112€S.Ct.€at€2040€(quoting€òòShaw€v.€Delta€AirÏLinesóó,€463€U.S.€85,€100€n.€21,€103€S.Ct.€2890,€2901€n.€21,€77ÏL.Ed.2d€490€(1983)).ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€next€addressed€theÏscope€of€the€ADA€preemption€provision€in€òòAmerican€Airlines,ÏInc.€v.€Wolensóó,€513€U.S.___,€115€S.Ct.€817,€130€L.Ed.2d€715Ï(1995).€€In€òòWolensóó,€participants€in€the€airline's€frequentÏflyer€program€brought€a€state„court€suit€challenging€theÏairline's€retroactive€changes€in€terms€and€conditions€of€theÏprogram.€€The€Court€held€that€"the€ADA's€preemptionÏprescription€bars€state„imposed€regulation€of€air€carriers,Ïbut€allows€room€for€court€enforcement€of€contract€terms€set€byÏthe€parties€themselves."€€òòId.óó€at€___,€115€S.Ct.€at€820.ÌÌà àAfter€determining€that€the€plaintiffs'€claimsÏrelated€to€rates,€the€Court€shifted€its€focus€from€theÏ"relating€to"€language€to€the€words€"enact€or€enforce€any€law"Íin€the€preemption€provision.€€The€Court€first€considered€theÏplaintiffs'€claim€under€the€state€consumer€protection€laws€andÏthen€the€breach€of€contract€claim.€€The€Court€concluded€thatÏthe€ADA€preempts€the€former€claims€because€of€"the€potentialÏfor€intrusive€regulation€of€airline€business€practicesÏinherent€in€state€consumer€protection€legislation."€€òòId.óó€atÏ___,€115€S.€Ct.€at€823.ÌÌà àIn€contrast,€the€Court€concluded€that€enforcement€ofÏprivate€agreements€does€not€involve€the€potential€forÏintrusive€state€regulation:ÌÌÓÓà8 àWe€do€not€read€the€ADA's€preemptionÏclause,€however,€to€shelter€airlines€fromÏsuits€alleging€no€violation€of€state„imposed€obligations,€but€seeking€recoveryÏsolely€for€the€airline's€alleged€breachÏof€its€own,€self„imposed€undertakings.€.Ï.€.€€[T]erms€and€conditions€airlinesÏoffer€and€passengers€accept€are€privatelyÏordered€obligations€"and€thus€do€notÏamount€to€a€State's€'enact[ment]€orÏenforce[ment]€[of]€any€law,€rule,Ïregulation,€standard,€or€other€provisionÏhaving€the€force€and€effect€of€law'Ïwithin€the€meaning€of€[ðð]€1305(a)(1)."ÌÌÌÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€___,€115€S.Ct.€at€824.€€The€Court€observed€that€theÍADA€gives€no€indication€that€Congress€intended€to€establish€anÏadministrative€process€for€DOT€adjudication€of€privateÏcontracts.€€òòId.óó€at€___,€115€S.Ct.€at€825.€€Furthermore,€theÏCourt€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àNor€is€it€plausible€that€CongressÏmeant€to€channel€into€federal€courts€theÏbusiness€of€resolving,€pursuant€toÏjudicially€fashioned€federal€common€law,Ïthe€range€of€contract€claims€relating€toÏairline€rates,€routes,€or€services.€€TheÏADA€contains€no€hint€of€such€a€role€forÏthe€federal€courts.ÌÌÌÌòòÓÓId.óó€€Finally,€the€Court€explained€how€the€ADA's€preemptionÏprovision€and€the€FAA's€saving€clause€may€be€read€together:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€à àThe€conclusion€that€the€ADA€permitsÏstate„law„based€court€adjudication€ofÏroutine€breach€of€contract€claims€alsoÏmakes€sense€of€Congress'€retention€of€theÏFAA's€saving€clause,€ðð€1106,€49ÏU.S.C.App.€ðð€1506€(preserving€"theÏremedies€now€existing€at€common€law€or€byÏstatute").€€The€ADA's€preemption€clause,Ïðð€1305(a)(1),€read€together€with€theÏFAA's€saving€clause,€stops€States€fromÏimposing€their€own€substantive€standardsÏwith€respect€to€rates,€routes,€orÏservices,€but€not€from€affording€reliefÏto€a€party€who€claims€and€proves€that€anÏairline€dishonored€a€term€the€airlineÍitself€stipulated.€€This€distinctionÏbetween€what€the€State€dictates€and€whatÏthe€airline€itself€undertakes€confinesÏcourts,€in€breach€of€contract€actions,€toÏthe€parties'€bargain,€with€no€enlargementÏor€enhancement€based€on€state€laws€orÏpolicies€external€to€the€agreement.ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€___,€115€S.Ct.€at€826€(footnote€omitted).ÌÓÓÌà àThus,€òòMoralesóó€and€òòWolensóó€establish€a€two„part€testÏfor€determining€ADA€preemption€of€a€state€law€claim:€(1)€œthe›Ïclaim€must€be€related€to€airline€rates,€routes,€or€services,Ïeither€by€expressly€referring€to€them€or€having€a€significantÏeconomic€effect€upon€them;€and€(2)€œthe›€claim€must€involve€theÏenactment€or€enforcement€of€a€state€law,€rule,€regulation,Ïstandard€or€other€provision.€€òòSeeóó€òòTravel€All€Over€the€World€v.ÏSaudi€Arabiaóó,€73€F.3d€1423,€1432€(7th€Cir.€1996);€òòContinentalÏAirlines€v.€Kieferóó,€920€S.W.2d€274,€281€(Tex.€1996).Ìò òÌó óà àThe€facts€of€the€present€case€are€analogous€to€thoseÏin€òòSeals€v.€Delta€Airlines,€Inc.óó,€924€F.Supp.€854€(E.D.Tenn.Ï1996),€in€which€the€same€issues€were€carefully€considered€byÏthe€United€States€District€Court.€€The€plaintiff,€who€hadÏdifficulty€walking€long€distances€because€of€physicalÍproblems,€made€arrangements€with€Delta€Airlines€forÏtransportation€between€gates€when€she€had€to€change€planes€inÏDallas€on€her€flight€from€Chattanooga€to€Killeen,€Texas.€ÏHowever,€no€assistance€was€provided€when€she€arrived€inÏDallas.€€When€the€plaintiff€asked€for€the€promised€wheelchair,Ïshe€was€told€that€there€was€not€one€there.€€In€an€effort€toÏcatch€her€flight€to€Killeen,€which€already€had€begun€boarding,Ïshe€tried€to€run€to€the€gate.€€While€running,€she€collapsedÏand€fell.€€The€plaintiff's€suit€against€Delta€Airlines€allegedÏbreach€of€contract€and€negligence.ÌÌà àRelying€on€òòWolensóó,€the€district€court€held€that€theÏstate€breach€of€contract€action€was€not€preempted€by€the€ADA.€ÏòòId.óó€at€858.€€With€regard€to€the€negligence€claim,€the€courtÏstated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àAlthough€òòWolensóó€did€not€actually€decideÏwhether€state€common€law€negligenceÏactions€would€be€preempted€by€the€ADA,Ïdicta€abound€in€each€of€this€case's€threeÏopinions.€€In€fact,€the€issue€was€broughtÏout€in€oral€argument,€as€the€majorityÏnoted€in€a€footnote:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€preceding€subsection€.€.€.Ïrequires€an€air€carrier€to€haveÍinsurance,€in€an€amountÏprescribed€by€the€DOT,€to€coverÏclaims€for€personal€injuriesÏand€property€losses€"resultingÏfrom€the€operation€orÏmaintenance€of€aircraft."€€òòSeeóóÏBrief€for€United€States€asÏAmicus€Curiae€19„20,€and€n.€12.€ÏAmerican€does€not€urge€that€theÏADA€preempts€personal€injuryÏclaims€related€to€airlineÏoperations.€€òòSeeóó€Tr.€of€OralÏArg.€4€(acknowledgment€byÏcounsel€for€petitioner€thatÏ"safety€claims,"€for€example,€aÏnegligence€claim€arising€out€ofÏa€plane€crash,€"would€generallyÏnot€be€preempted");€Brief€forÏUnited€States€as€Amicus€CuriaeÏ20,€N.12€("It€is€.€.€.€unlikelyÏthat€Section€1305(a)(1)Ïpreempts€safety„relatedÏpersonal„injury€claims€relatingÏto€airline€operations.").ÌÌà8 àòòId.óó€at€___€n.€7,€115€S.Ct.€at€825€n.€7.€ÏThe€majority€later€noted:Ì€€Ìà8 àà8 àJustice€Stevens€reads€ourÏòòMoralesóó€decision€to€demand€onlyÏminimal€preemption;€inÏcontra[s]t,€Justice€O'ConnorÏreads€the€same€case€to€mandateÏtotal€preemption.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àJustice€O'Connor's€"all€isÏpreempted"€position€leaves€roomÏfor€personal€injury€claims,€butÏonly€by€classifying€them€asÏmatters€not€"relating€to€[airÏcarrier]€.€.€.€services."ÌÌà8 àòòId.óó€at€___„___€&€n.€9,€115€S.Ct.€at€826„27€&€n.€9.ÌÌà àà8 àJustice€Stevens€wrote:Ì€€Ìà8 àà8 àIn€my€opinion,€private€tortÏactions€based€on€common„lawÏnegligence€or€fraud,€or€on€aÏstatutory€prohibition€againstÏfraud,€are€not€pre„empted.€.€.Ï.Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àòòId.óó€at€___„___,€115€S.Ct.€at€827„28Ï(Stevens,€J.,€concurring€in€part€andÏdissenting€in€part)€(footnote€andÏcitations€omitted).ÌÌ€à8 àà àJustice€O'Connor's€much€harsherÏapplication€of€preemption,€as€notedÏabove,€would€still€leave€room€forÏpersonal€injury€claims:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àAs€the€Court€recognizes,Ïmy€personal€view€of€òòMoralesóóÏdoes€not€mean€that€personalÏinjury€claims€against€airlinesÏare€always€preempted.€€ManyÏcases€decided€since€òòMoralesóóÏhave€allowed€personal€injuryÏclaims€to€proceed,€even€thoughÏnone€has€said€that€a€State€isÏnot€"enforcing"€its€"law"€whenÏit€imposes€tort€liability€on€anÏairline.€€In€those€cases,Ïcourts€have€found€theÏparticular€tort€claims€at€issueÏnot€to€"relate"€to€airlineÏ"services,".€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àòòId.óó€at€___,€115€S.Ct.€at€830€(O'Connor,ÏJ.,€concurring€in€part€and€dissenting€inÍpart)€(citation€omitted).€€As€previouslyÏnoted,€Justice€Thomas€joined€in€this€partÏof€Justice€O'Connor's€opinion.ÌÌà8 àà àFrom€an€analysis€of€the€dicta€inÏòòWolensóó,€this€Court€can€reach€but€oneÏconclusion,€that€the€Supreme€Court€doesÏnot€interpret€the€ADA€preemption€clauseÏto€extend€to€personal€injury€suitsÏagainst€carriers.€€Even€Justice€O'Connor,Ïwho€espouses€the€broadest€interpretationÏof€the€preemption€clause,€would€allowÏsuch€suits€to€continue€on€the€theory€thatÏsuch€safety€concerns€do€not€"relate"€toÏprovisions€of€"services"€by€carriers.€ÏThis€Court€is€also€persuaded€by€the€logicÏof€Justice€Stevens'€opinion€that€CongressÏcould€not€have€intended€either€to€leaveÏpassengers€injured€through€airlineÏnegligence€without€a€remedy€or€to€turnÏthe€Department€of€Transportation€into€aÏforum€for€adjudication€of€personal€injuryÏclaims.€€The€defendant's€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€will€therefore€beÏò òDENIEDó ó€as€to€the€negligence€claim€asÏwell.ÌÓÓÌòòSealsóó,€924€F.Supp.€at€858„59.ÌÌà àThe€present€case€is€also€similar€to€the€second€ofÏtwo€cases€decided€by€the€Texas€Supreme€Court€in€òòContinentalÏAirlines,€Inc.€v.€Kieferóó,€920€S.W.2d€274€(Tex.€1996).€€In€theÏsecond€case,€a€passenger€and€his€parents€sued€the€airlines€forÏbreach€of€contract,€negligence,€and€€violations€of€the€stateÍconsumer€protection€statutes,€based€on€their€failure€toÏprovide€meet„and„assist€services.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÏairlines'€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€ground€that€theÏADA€preempted€the€plaintiffs'€action.€€The€court€of€appealsÏaffirmed€as€to€the€claim€under€the€consumer€protection€statuteÏbut€reversed€as€to€the€breach€of€contract€and€negligenceÏclaims.€€The€airlines€appealed€only€the€reversal€of€theÏsummary€judgment€on€the€negligence€claim.ÌÌà àThe€Texas€Supreme€Court€first€determined€that,€givenÏthe€broad€definition€of€"related€to"€prescribed€by€òòMoralesóó,€aÏpersonal„injury€negligence€action€is€related€to€airline€ratesÏand€services.€€òòId.óó€at€281.€€The€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àSuch€a€negligence€action€is€not€relatedÏto€airline€rates€and€services€quite€asÏdirectly€as€the€contract€claims€inÏòòWolensóó,€but€the€impact€of€tort€liabilityÏon€an€airline's€rates€and€services€is€noÏless€real.€€The€effect€is€certainly€notÏas€"tenuous,€remote,€or€peripheral"€as€aÏprohibition€against€obscenity€inÏadvertising,€the€example€òòMoralesóó€gives€ofÏa€non„preempted€law.€€504€U.S.€at€390,Ï112€S.Ct.€at€2040.€€Tort€liability€cannotÏbut€have,€in€òòMoralesóó'€words,€"aÏsignificant€impact€upon€the€faresÏ[airlines]€charge,"€òòid.óó€at€390,€112€S.Ct.Íat€2040,€just€as€the€advertisingÏguidelines€in€that€case.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€€The€court€then€examined€whether€a€personal„injuryÏnegligence€action€constitutes€enforcement€of€state€law€withinÏthe€meaning€of€the€ADA's€preemption€provision.€€The€€courtÏheld:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWith€certain€reservations,€we€thinkÏnegligence€law€is€not€so€policy„laden€inÏimposing€liability€for€personal€injuriesÏthat€suits€for€damages€like€those€beforeÏus€are€preempted€by€the€ADA.€€WeÏrecognize€that€with€negligence€law,€andÏother€tort€law,€there€is€a€greater€riskÏthat€state€policies€will€be€too€muchÏinvolved€than€there€is€with€contract€law,Ïespecially€in€the€area€of€damages.€€ForÏexample,€recovery€of€punitive€damages€forÏnegligence€is,€depending€on€the€StateÏinvolved,€essentially€unlimited,€limitedÏby€judicial€rule,€limited€by€statute,Ïshared€between€the€plaintiff€and€theÏstate,€or€disallowed€altogether.€€OneÏcould€easily€argue€that€the€threat€ofÏpunitive€damages€against€airlines€has€aÏgreater€regulatory€effect€than€liabilityÏfor€actual€damages.€€Also,€recovery€ofÏdamages€for€mental€anguish€may€or€may€notÏrequire€accompanying€physical€injury,€orÏaggravated€conduct€by€the€defendant,€orÏbe€subject€to€other€restrictions.€€SuchÏdifferences€could€fall€within€theÏconcerns€argued€by€the€DOT€in€òòWolensóó,€butÏthese€differences€are€minimal€in€theÍcases€before€us.€€Plaintiffs€in€neitherÏcase€seek€punitive€damages,€and€we€cannotÏdetermine€from€the€limited€summaryÏjudgment€records€how€significant€theÏmental€anguish€claims€may€be.ÌÌà àà àà àà àÌÌòòId.óó€at€282.× ƒ2 ××  ×Ì€€ÌÓÓÌà àThe€first€issue€to€be€considered€in€the€case€at€barÏis€the€breach€of€contract€claim.€€American€undertakes€to€avoidÏthe€holding€in€òòWolensóó€by€asserting€that€it€was€obligated€byÏthe€Air€Carrier€Access€Act€of€1968,€49€U.S.C.€App.€ðð€1374€toÏprovide€Mrs.Knopp€with€a€wheelchair€because€she€qualifies€asÏa€"handicapped€individual."€€This€position€is€contrary€toÏAmerican's€statement€in€its€Court€of€Appeals€brief€thatÏ"[p]laintiffs€can€point€to€no€provision€of€the€ACAA'sÏimplementing€regulations€that€American€violated."€ÏFurthermore,€the€plaintiffs€do€not€allege€a€violation€of€anyÏstate€or€federal€law€regulating€treatment€of€the€handicapped.€ÏThe€plaintiffs'€claim€is€based€on€common„law€contractÍprinciples.€€òòWolensóó€compels€this€Court€to€conclude€that€aÏbreach€of€contract€claim€based€on€state€law€is€not€preemptedÏby€ðð€1305(a)(1).€€Even€though€the€agreement€to€provide€aÏwheelchair€for€transportation€between€gates€may€be€said€toÏrelate€to€airline€services,€it€constitutes€a€privately€assumedÏobligation,€not€an€enforcement€of€state€law.€€Consequently,Ïthe€ADA€does€not€preempt€the€state€law€breach€of€contractÏaction€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€other€issue€before€the€Court€is€the€negligenceÏclaim.€€Although€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€notÏdecided€the€issue,€dicta€in€òòWolensóó€strongly€suggests€that€theÏADA€does€not€preempt€personal€injury€suits.€€òòSealsóó,€924€F.ÏSupp.€at€859;€òòContinental€Airlinesóó,€920€S.W.2d€at€281.€€TheÏplaintiffs€allege€failure€to€exercise€due€care€in€operatingÏthe€electric€cart€from€which€Mrs.Knopp€fell.€€The€cart€wasÏused€to€transport€airline€passengers€between€gates.€€GivenÏòòMorales'óó€construction€of€the€"relating€to"€language€in€ððÏ1305(a)(1),€the€Court€concludes€that€the€negligence€claim€inÏthis€case€is€related€to€airline€services.€€In€reaching€theÏconclusion€that€the€negligence€action€does€not€constitute€anÍenforcement€of€state€law€relating€to€services€within€theÏmeaning€of€ðð€1305(a)(1),€the€Court€adopts€the€reasoning€of€theÏTexas€Supreme€Court€in€the€òòContinental€Airlinesóó€decision.€€AsÏstated€by€that€court:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àFundamentally,€the€purpose€of€ADAÏpreemption€is€not€to€absolve€airlinesÏfrom€all€liability€under€state€law,€butÏto€prohibit€state€regulation€of€airÏcarriers,€direct€or€indirect.€€Congress'Ïconcern€was€"that€the€States€would€notÏundo€federal€deregulation€with€regulationÏof€their€own."€€òòMoralesóó,€504€U.S.€at€378,Ï112€S.Ct.€at€2034.€€Common„law€negligenceÏactions€to€recover€damages€for€personalÏinjuries€do€not€impinge€in€anyÏsignificant€way€on€Congress'€concern.€ÏSuch€actions€did€not€impair€federalÏregulation€before€the€ADA,€and€we€do€notÏsee€how€they€impair€deregulation€since.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòContinental€Airlinesóó,€920€S.W.2d€at€282.€Thus,€the€conclusionÏis€that€the€plaintiffs'€negligence€claim€in€this€case€is€notÏpreempted€by€the€ADA.€ÌÌà àThe€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmed,Ïand€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€against€the€defendants.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Anderson,€andÌ€€€€€White,€JJ.€ÌÌ