UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


HALDIMANN, MARTHA

v.

DELTA AIRLN INC


98-7135a

D.C. Cir. 1999


*	*	*


Williams, Circuit Judge: On June 19, 1996 Martha Haldi- mann set out
from Geneva on a journey to the United States.  Swissair was to take
her to Washington and, at the end, back  to Geneva; Delta was to take
her from Washington (leaving  about a week after her arrival) to
Pensacola (to visit her  parents), then on to Gainesville (for a
seminar at the Univer- sity of Florida), and finally back to
Washington in time for  her to depart for Geneva on July 15. On the
Pensacola to  Gainesville leg of the journey, Haldimann was injured
when  one of the engines caught fire during preparation for takeoff. 
She sued Delta for her injuries, her husband joining for loss  of
consortium. If the Pensacola-Gainesville flight was "inter- national
transportation" within the meaning of the Warsaw  Convention,1 then
its provisions apply, with the effect (among  others) of limiting
Delta's liability to $75,000. The district  court concluded that the
Pensacola-Gainesville leg was inter- national transportation, and
granted Delta's motion for partial  summary judgment to that effect.
It then granted plaintiffs'  motion to certify the order for immediate
appeal under 28  U.S.C. s 1292(b), and we granted the petition for


* * *


The Convention defines international transportation as:


[A]ny transportation in which, according to the contract  made by the
parties, the place of departure and the place  of destination, whether
or not there be a break in the  transportation ... are situated either
within the territo- ries of two High Contracting Parties, or within
the  territory of a single High Contracting Party, if there is  an
agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the  sovereignty
... of another power ...


Article 1(2), 49 U.S.C. s 40105 note (emphasis added). The  Convention
also provides that transportation to be performed  by successive
carriers shall be deemed to be




__________

n 1 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to 
International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000; 
T.S. No. 876 (1934), reprinted in 49 U.S.C. s 40105 note.


one undivided transportation, if it has been regarded by  the parties
as a single operation, whether it has been  agreed upon under the form
of a single contract or of a  series of contracts, and it shall not
lose its international  character merely because one contract or a
series of  contracts is to be performed entirely within a territory 
subject to the sovereignty ... of the same High Con- tracting Party.


Article 1(3).


Although the emphasized language in Article 1(2) might  support a claim
that the entire trip was international, the  parties assume that it is
Article 1(3) that controls, and we  follow suit. The language of the
Article 1(3), "if it has been  regarded by the parties as a single
operation," suggests that  we must look to the intention of the
parties. It would seem  rather difficult to do so, for
they--especially the traveler--are  unlikely ever to have remotely
considered the question wheth- er the transportation was "a single
operation," or ever to have  pondered what that phrase might mean. In
fact, in the rare  case where there has been evidence of the
traveler's subjec- tive intent, and it contradicted the court's
inference from  specific documentary indicia, courts have held that
the indicia  trump subjective evidence. The cases mostly involve
applica- tion of Article 28(1), allowing jurisdiction in the place of 
"destination," which on a round-trip means the starting place.  Thus,
where Polish citizens flew from Warsaw to New York  intending not to
return to Poland, but bought round-trip  tickets because otherwise the
regime would not have allowed  them out of Poland, the court treated
the ticket as controlling.  So the journey was the full round-trip,
and Warsaw the  "destination." Klos v. Polskie Linie Lotnicze, 133
F.3d 164,  166-68 (2d Cir. 1997). And when a traveler bought a round-
trip ticket from Dakar to New York, leaving the date of the  return
journey open, he was held to have embarked on a  round-trip even
though he said (apparently without contra- diction) that he intended
to remain in New York and had  bought the round-trip ticket only
because it was cheaper than  a one-way. Swaminathan v. Swiss Air
Transport Co., 962  F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1992). See also Sopcak v.


Mountain Helicopter Service, 52 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1995) 
(looking to "intention of the parties as expressed in the  contract of
transportation"); Petrire v. Spantax, 756 F.2d  263, 264-65 (2d Cir.


Here, Haldimann arranged her entire travel itinerary  through a Swiss
travel agency called Lathion-Voyages, which  booked space on Swissair
for the transatlantic travel and on  Delta for the travel within the
United States. The Swissair  and Delta tickets were contained in
separate booklets, but  both were issued and paid for on the same
date, March 7,  1996. Both tickets share the same record number, with
the  consequence that a Delta agent pulling up the Delta flights on  a
computer would also see the Swissair legs of the journey,  and vice


The Second Circuit in Petrire, and a host of district courts,  have
found simultaneous issue of ticket booklets at a single  place
sufficient to establish the "single operation" required by  Article
1(3). 756 F.2d at 264-65; see also McLoughlin v.  Commercial Airways
(PTY) Ltd., 602 F. Supp. 29, 33  (E.D.N.Y. 1985) ("The law seems clear
that where, as here,  the parties arrange and pay in full for an
international trip at  the outset, each leg of the journey (even
though some legs  may be wholly domestic, covered by a separate ticket
and  carried on a separate airline) is within the Convention"); 
Vergara v. Aeroflot Russian Int'l Airlines, 390 F. Supp. 1266  (D.
Neb. 1975) (court finds one undivided trip under Conven- tion where
each plaintiff purchased at same time, same place,  and through the
same agent six booklets of tickets for an  around-the-world trip on
eight different airlines with stops in  as many countries). They have
reached that result apparent- ly without even ascertaining whether a
single record number  embraced all legs of the journey.


The plaintiffs emphasize that the Swissair and Delta com- ponents of
the journey were in separate ticket booklets and  that the entire trip
took more than a month. No court has  regarded either of such factors
as militating even in the  slightest against finding a "single
operation." And the lan- guage of the Convention argues against doing
so, as Article 


1(3) views transportation as "undivided ... whether it has  been
agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a  series of
contracts." The Second Circuit in Petrire expressly  declined to allow
the existence of multiple ticket booklets to  affect the analysis,
even though, curiously, it appeared to  assume that a single operation
required that there be only  one contract. Petrire, 756 F.2d at 265
("The already fine  distinctions that have developed in construing the
Warsaw  Convention would become absurd if the existence of a single 
contract turned on whether the ... coupons issued for travel  ... were
enclosed in one or two booklets"). Nor are plain- tiffs able to cite a
single case relying on the duration of a  journey, even though the
occasional case will reveal in the  statement of facts a journey about
as long as the plaintiff's  here. See Vergara, 390 F. Supp. at 1268
(22 days scheduled  for journey, with flights "open" for later phases
of trip).  Plaintiffs offer no reason why duration should be of any 
relevance when other factors suggest a single undivided trip.


It may seem odd that Ms. Haldimann's Delta flights,  occurring entirely
within the United States and in themselves  certainly capable of being
viewed as a complete journey,  should prove to be part of
"international transportation."  But the Convention aims primarily to
"achiev[e] uniformity of  rules governing claims arising from
international air trans- portation." Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd,
499 U.S. 530, 552  (1991). And the liability limit, here cutting
against Ms.  Haldimann, is only part of a trade-off, balanced as it is
by the  Convention's presumption of liability. See Articles 17 et
seq.;  see also El Al Israel Airlines v. Tseng, __ U.S. __, 119 S. Ct.
 662, 672 (1999); Republic Nat'l Bank v. Eastern Airlines, 815  F.2d
232, 236 (2d Cir. 1987). It thus enables international  travelers to
secure the benefits of the treaty regime even for  segments of
international transportation that are wholly with- in the territory of
a signatory with a tort system far narrower  than that of the


Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to  the
nonmoving party, as we must on summary judgment,  Adickes v. S.H.
Kress and Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970), the 


Pensacola-Gainesville journey was, as a matter of law, part of 
"international transportation."


The judgment of the district court is affirmed.


So ordered.