Unit 1 Assignment Case Brief Case Brief
| Olympic Airways v. Husain Case Brief | |
| Who are the parties to the case? | The main parties to this case were Olympic Airways and Rubina Husain. Olympic Airways was the petitioner. The plaintiff, Rubina Husain, represented the deceased’s estate (Abid M. Hanson) (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014). |
| What is the citation of the case? | The case’s citation is 540 US 644 (2004) (Oyez, n.d). |
| What are the basic facts of the case? | The deceased, Abid M. Hanson, and his wife, Rubina Husain, boarded an Olympic Airways plane. Due to the deceased’s allergy to second-hand smoke, they requested non-smoking seats. These seats were still close to the smoking zone. The couple requested the flight attendant to move them further away from this area twice. However, the requests were not granted despite the availability of unoccupied seats in the non-smoking areas. By this time, the smoke had already affected the late Abid M. Hanson. As a result, he perished during the flight.
His wife, Rubina Husain, filed a suit at the California federal district court. The petition sought damages as dictated in Warsaw’s Convention Article 17. The court ruled that the death of Abid was an accident and awarded the wife $1.4 million. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling (Oyez, n.d). |
| What did Mr. Husain’s estate argue? | Mr. Husain’s estate argued that the death was a result of an asthma attack, which was triggered by the smoke. They also highlighted the flight attendant’s refusal to act upon the request to change the travelers’ seats. The problem highlighted in the argument was the attendant’s negligence while dealing with a potentially risky situation that could pose harm to the passenger’s health. Thus, the negligence qualified the event as an accident. |
| What did Olympic Air argue? | Olympic Air argued that the death was caused by “internal reactions to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014). This argument implied that the presumed accident was not responsible for the passenger’s demise. The presence of smoke was a normal aspect of international travel. Thus, the flight attendant was not obliged to change the deceased’s seats. Furthermore, the passenger already had preexisting allergies that led to the death, and not the smoke (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014). |
| What did the court decide? | The court ruled that the events leading to Hanson’s death were an ‘accident.’ This ruling was based on Warsaw Convention Article 17. The attendant’s negligence to observe the couple’s requests acted as a ‘link in the chain’ of the causes that were responsible for Hanson’s death. The attendant’s refusal to Hanson’s explicit request at a time when his health was at risk was termed as an event (Oyez, n.d). The appellate court affirmed this ruling. |
| Did the court apply statutory law, case law or both in reaching its decision? | The court applied both the statutory and case laws while making the ruling. The statutory law that mainly informed the ruling is Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. The court cited the Air France vs. Saks (1985) ruling (Oyez, n.d). |
References
Oyez. (n.d). Olympic Airways v. Husain. Retrieved 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1348
U.S. Department of Justice. (2014). Olympic Airways v. Husain – Amicus (Merits). Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/olympic-airways-v-husain-amicus-merits
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Unit 1 Assignment Case Brief Case Brief
Overview:
In litigation, lawyers need to rely on case law to support the outcome they are asking the court take. Lawyers will
Unit 1 Assignment Case Brief Case Brief
often “brief” a case to obtain a better understanding of the case. In other words, lawyers will use a specific format to outline the most important points in a court’s decision. This activity will also assist you in understanding the cases discussed in this class.
Instructions:
- Listen to the oral arguments in the Olympic Airways v. Husain case. Read about the case.
- Read about how to brief a case.
- Using the template provided, complete a “brief” about the case, including the following:
- Who are the parties to the case?
- What is the citation of the case?
- What are the basic facts of the case?
- What Mr. Husain’s estate argue?
- What did Olympic Air argue?
- What did the court decide?
- Did the court apply statutory law, case law or both in reaching its decision?
Requirements:
- Use APA format for non-legal sources such as the textbook. Use Bluebook citation format for any legal citations.
- Include the resource to the case and oral arguments.
- You do not need to use any sources other than your text and the audio
recording of the oral arguments.
- Submit a Word document using the case brief template.
- Maximum two pages in length, excluding the Reference page.
Be sure to read the criteria below by which your work will be evaluated before you write and again after you write.