Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.

Delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether international air carriers lose the benefit of the limitation on damages for passenger injury or death provided by the multilateral treaty known as the Warsaw Convention if they fail to provide notice of that limitation in the 10-point type size required by a private accord among carriers, the Montreal Agreement.

I

On September 1, 1983, over the Sea of Japan, a military aircraft of the Soviet Union destroyed a Korean Air Lines, Ltd. (KAL), Boeing 747 en route from Kennedy Airport in New York to Seoul, South Korea. All 269 persons on board the plane perished. Survivors of the victims filed wrongful-death actions against KAL in several Federal District Courts, all of which were transferred for pretrial proceedings to the District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1407. All parties agree that their rights are governed by the Warsaw Convention, a multilateral treaty governing the international carriage of passengers, baggage, and cargo by air. 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 note following 49 U. S. C. App. § 1502.

The present controversy centers on the per passenger damages limitation for personal injury or death. This was fixed at approximately $8,300 by the Convention, but was raised to $75,000 by the Montreal Agreement, an agreement among carriers executed (and approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)) in 1966, and joined by KAL in 1969. Agreement Relating to Liability Limitations of the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol, CAB Agreement 18900, note following 49 U. S. C. App. § 1502 (approved by CAB Order E-23680, May 13, 1966, 31 Fed. Reg. 7302). In addition to providing for a higher damages limitation, this agreement required carriers to give passengers written notice of the Convention’s damage limitations in print size no smaller than 10-point type. The notice of the Convention’s liability rules printed on KAL’s passenger tickets for the flight in question here appeared in only 8-point type. By motion for partial summary judgment, plaintiffs sought a declaration that this discrepancy deprived KAL of the benefit of the damages limitation.

On July 25, 1985, the District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion, finding that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement prescribes that the sanction for failure to provide the required form of notice is the elimination of the damages limitation. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 664 F. Supp. 1463. Its opinion specifically considered and rejected contrary Second Circuit precedent. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March 14, 1980, 705 F. 2d 85, cert. denied sub nom. Polskie Linie Lotnicze v. Robles, 464 U. S. 845 (1983). On September 24, 1985, the District Court certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) (1982 ed., Supp. IV) the question whether KAL “is entitled to avail itself of the limitation of damages provided by the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Agreement despite its defective tickets.” The District of Columbia Circuit allowed the appeal and (following a remand of the record for clarification of the scope of the District Court’s order) affirmed, adopting the District Court’s opinion in full. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 265 U. S. App. D. C. 39, 829 F. 2d 1171 (1987). We granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 986 (1988), to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals. (In addition to the Second Circuit, the Fifth is in disagreement with the District of Columbia Circuit’s resolution here. See In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana, on July 9, 1982, 789 F. 2d 1092 (1986), reinstated, 821 F. 2d 1147 (1987) (en banc).)

II

Petitioners concede that by itself the Montreal Agreement imposes no sanction for failure to comply with its 10-point type requirement. They argue, however, that such a requirement is created by reading the Montreal Agreement in conjunction with the Warsaw Convention. This argument proceeds in two steps. First, petitioners assert that Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention removes the protection of limited liability if a carrier fails to provide adequate notice of the Convention’s liability limitation in its passenger tickets. Second, they contend that the Montreal Agreement’s 10-point type requirement supplies the standard of adequate notice under Article 3. Because we reject the first point, we need not reach the second.

Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention provides:

“(1) For the transportation of passengers the carriers must deliver a passenger ticket which shall contain the following particulars:

“(a) The place and date of issue;

“(b) The place of departure and of destination;

“(c) The agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case of necessity, and that if he exercises that right, the alteration shall not have the effect of depriving the transportation of its international character;

“(d) The name and address of the carrier or carriers;

“(e) A statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.

“(2) The absence, irregularity, or loss of the passenger ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this convention. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability.”

Although Article 3(1)(e) specifies that a passenger ticket shall contain “[a] statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention,” nothing in Article 3 or elsewhere in the Convention imposes a sanction for failure to provide an “adequate” statement. The only sanction in Article 3 appears in the second clause of Article 3(2), which subjects a carrier to unlimited liability if it “accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered.” Several courts have equated nondelivery of a ticket, for purposes of this provision, with the delivery of a ticket in a form that fails to provide adequate notice of the Warsaw limitation. See In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana, on July 9, 1982, supra; In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March 11, 1980, 705 F. 2d 85 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Polskie Linie Lotnicze v. Robles, 464 U. S. 845 (1983); Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft v. CAB, 156 U. S. App. D. C. 191, 196-197, 479 F. 2d 912, 917-918 (1973); Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S. p. A., 370 F. 2d 508 (CA2 1966), aff’d by equally divided Court, 390 U. S. 455 (1968); Egan v. Kollsman Instrument Corp., 21 N. Y. 2d 160, 234 N. E. 2d 199 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 1039 (1968). See also Warren v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 352 F. 2d 494 (CA9 1965) (conditioning liability limitation upon delivery of tickets in such manner as to afford passengers a reasonable opportunity to take measures to protect against liability limitation); Mertens v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 341 F. 2d 851 (CA2) (same), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 816 (1965). But see Ludecke v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 98 D. L. R. 3d 52, 57 (Can. 1979) (rejecting the view of the American cases).

We cannot accept this interpretation. All that the second sentence of Article 3(2) requires in order to avoid its sanction is the “delivery]” of “a passenger ticket.” Expanding this to mean “a passenger ticket in compliance with the requirements of this Convention” is rendered implausible by the first sentence of Article 3(2), which specifies that “[t]he . . . irregularity ... of the passenger ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this convention.” It is clear from this (1) that an “irregularity” does not prevent a document from being a “passenger ticket”; and (2) that an “irregularity” in a passenger ticket does not eliminate the contractual damages limitation provided for by the Convention. “Irregularity” means the “[qjuality or state of not conforming to rule or law,” Webster’s Second International Dictionary (1950), and in the present context the word must surely refer to the rules established by the Convention, including the notice requirement. Thus, a delivered document does not fail to qualify as a “passenger ticket,” and does not cause forfeiture of the damages limitation, merely because it contains a defective notice. When Article 3(2), after making this much clear, continues (in the second sentence) “Nevertheless, if a carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered, etc.,” it can only be referring to the carrier’s failure to deliver any document whatever, or its delivery of a document whose shortcomings are so extensive that it cannot reasonably be described as a “ticket” (for example, a mistakenly delivered blank form, with no data filled in). Quite obviously, the use of 8-point type instead of 10-point type for the liability limitation notice is not a shortcoming of such magnitude; indeed, one might well select that as a polar example of what could not possibly prevent a document from being a ticket.

Besides being incompatible with the language of the Convention, the proposition that, for purposes of Article 3(2), delivering a defective ticket is equivalent to failure to deliver a ticket, produces absurd results. It may seem reasonable enough that a carrier “shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability” when the ticket defect consists precisely of a failure to give the passenger proper notice of those provisions. But there is no textual basis for limiting the “defective-ticket-is-no-ticket” principle to that particular defect. Thus, the liability limitation would also be eliminated if the carrier failed to comply, for example, with the requirement of Article 3(1 )(d) that the ticket contain the address of the carrier.

The conclusion that defective compliance with the notice provision does not eliminate the liability limitation is confirmed by comparing Article 3(2) with other provisions of the Convention. Article 3 is a part of Chapter II of the Convention, entitled “Transportation Documents.” Just as Section I of that Chapter (which includes Article 3) specifies what information must be included in passenger tickets, Sections II and III specify what information must be included in, respectively, baggage checks and air waybills for cargo. All three sections require, in identical terms, “[a] statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.” Articles 3(l)(eJ, 4(2)(h), 8(q). All three sections also provide, again in identical terms, that if the relevant document (ticket, baggage check, or air waybill) has not been delivered (or, in the case of air waybill, “made out”), the carrier “shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability.” Articles 3(2), 4(4), and 9. But, unlike Section I, Sections II and III also specifically impose the latter sanction for failure to include in the documents certain particulars, including (though not limited to) the notice of liability limitation. Sections II and III thus make doubly clear what the text of Article 3(2) already indicates: that delivery of a defective document is something quite different from failure to deliver a document. And given the parallel structures of these provisions it would be a flouting of the text to imply in Section I a sanction not only withheld there but explicitly granted elsewhere. When such an interpretation is allowed, the art of draftsmanship will have become obsolete.

Petitioners and the United States as amicus curiae seek to explain the variance between Section I and Sections II and III (as well as the clear text of Article 3) as a drafting error, and lead us through the labyrinth of the Convention’s drafting history in an effort to establish this point. It would be absurd, they urge, for defective notice to eliminate liability limits on baggage and air freight but not on personal injury and death. Perhaps not. It might have been thought, by the representatives from diverse countries who drafted the Convention in 1925 and 1929 (an era when even many States of this country had relatively low limits on wrongful-death recovery) that the $8,300 maximum liability established for personal injury or death was a “fair” recovery in any event, so that even if the defective notice caused the passenger to forgo the purchase of additional insurance, he or his heirs would be treated with rough equity in any event. Cf. C. McCormick, Law of Damages § 104 (1935) (“In about one-third of the states, a fixed limit upon the recovery under the Death Act is imposed in the statute. The usual limit is $10,000, but in some instances the maximum is $7,500 or $5,000”). Quite obviously, however, the limitation of liability for baggage and freight (about $16.50 per kilogram, see Article 22(2)) was not set with an eye to fair value (the very notion of a “fair” average value of goods per kilogram is absurd), but perhaps with an eye to fair level of liability in relation to profit on the carriage — so that the shipper of lost goods misled by the inadequate notice would not be compensated equitably. Another possible explanation for the difference in treatment is that the limitations on liability prescribed for baggage and freight are much more substantial and thus notice of them is much more important. They include not just a virtually nominal monetary limit, but also total exclusion of liability for “an error in piloting, in the handling of the aircraft, or in navigation.” Article 20. Or perhaps the difference in treatment can be traced to a belief that people were much more likely, if adequate notice was given, to purchase additional insurance on goods than on their own lives — not only because baggage and freight are lost a lot more frequently than passengers, but also because the Convention itself establishes, in effect, an insurance-purchasing counter at the airport for baggage and freight, providing that if the consignor makes “a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires,” the carrier will be liable for actual value up to the declared sum. Article 22(2); see also Articles 4(g), 8(to).

These estimations of what the drafters might have had in mind are of course speculation, but they suffice to establish that the result the text produces is not necessarily absurd, and hence cannot be dismissed as an obvious drafting error. We must thus be governed by the text — solemnly adopted by the governments of many separate nations — whatever conclusions might be drawn from the intricate drafting history that petitioners and the United States have brought to our attention. The latter may of course be consulted to elucidate a text that is ambiguous, see, e. g., Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392 (1985). But where the text is clear, as it is here, we have no power to insert an amendment. As Justice Story wrote for the Court more than a century and a half ago:

“[T]o alter, amend, or add to any treaty, by inserting any clause, whether small or great, important or trivial, would be on our part an usurpation of power, and not an exercise of judicial functions. It would be to make, and not to construe a treaty. Neither can this Court supply a casus omissus in a treaty, any more than in a law. We are to find out the intention of the parties by just rules of interpretation applied to the subject matter; and having found that, our duty is to follow it as far as it goes, and to stop where that stops — whatever may be the imperfections or difficulties which it leaves behind.” The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat. 1, 71 (1821).

For the reasons given above, we agree with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, see Ludecke v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 98 D. L. R. 3d 52 (1979), that the Warsaw Convention does not eliminate the limitation on damages for passenger injury or death as a sanction for failure to provide adequate notice of that limitation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District of Columbia Circuit.

So ordered.

The relevant portion of the Montreal Agreement provides:

“2. Each carrier shall, at the time of delivery of the ticket, furnish to each passenger whose transportation is governed by the Convention . . . the following notice, which shall be printed in type at least as large as 10 point and in ink contrasting with the stock on (i) each ticket; (ii) a piece of paper either placed in the ticket envelope with the ticket or attached to the ticket; or (iii) on the ticket envelope:

“ADVICE TO INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

“Passengers on a journey involving an ultimate destination or a stop in a country other than the country of origin are advised that the provisions of a treaty known as the Warsaw Convention may be applicable to the entire journey, including any portion entirely within the country of origin or destination. For such passengers on a journey to, from, or with an agreed stopping place in the United States of America, the Convention and special contracts of carriage embodied in applicable tariffs provide that the liability of certain (name the carrier) and certain other[*] carriers parties to such special contracts for death of or personal injury to passengers is limited in most cases to proven damages not to exceed US $75,000 per passenger, and that this liability up to such limit shall not depend on negligence on the part of the carrier. For such passengers travelling by a carrier not a party to such special contracts or on a journey not to, from, or having an agreed stopping place in the United States of America, liability of the carrier for death or personal injury to passengers is limited in most cases to approximately US $8,290 or US $16,580.

“The names of Carriers parties to such special contracts are available at all ticket offices of such carriers and may be examined on request.

“Additional protection can usually be obtained by purchasing insurance from a private company. Such insurance is not affected by any limitation of the carrier’s liability under the Warsaw Convention or such special contracts of carriage. For further information please consult your airline or insurance company representative.

“[*] Either alternative may be used.” Aeronautical Statutes and Related Materials 515 (compiled by Office of General Counsel, CAB, 1974).

For a similar reason, we need not discuss Department of Transportation (formerly CAB) Economic Regulation Part 221, 14 CFR §221.175(a) (1988), which was originally promulgated in 1963, before the Montreal Agreement, and which contains a similar requirement of 10-point type. This imports no sanctions of its own except a civil penalty, see 49 U. S. C. App. § 1471. Thus, even if (per impossibile) the Executive Branch could unilaterally prescribe what adequate notice under an international treaty consists of, the sanction of invalidating the damages limitations would still be lacking.

Justice Beennan accuses us of being “disingenuous” in saying that this is the only possible reading of Article 3. In the single paragraph supporting this accusation, he offers two arguments to show that Article 3 is “surely susceptible,” post, at 137, of another interpretation. First, he thinks it “not at all unreasonable to read the term ‘passenger ticket,’ when used ... in Article 3(2)” to mean, not what it meant in Article 3(1), but rather to be a “shorthand for [the] longer phrase” consisting of all the requirements that Article 3(1) says a passenger ticket must contain. It seems to us that this suggested reading is unreasonable — not only because no sensible draftsman would use such strange “shorthand” instead of referring, in Article 3(2), to “such a passenger ticket” rather than simply “passenger ticket,” but also because the result produced by the suggested reading is nonsensical. The effect of the concurrence’s exegesis can be assessed by substituting for the phrase “the passenger ticket” in Article 3(2) the phrase “a regular passenger ticket” — by which we mean (as does the concurrence) a ticket in full compliance with Article 3(1). The first sentence of Article 3(2) then reads, in relevant part: “The . . . irregularity. . . of a regular passenger ticket shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation.” The only way out of this absurdity is to posit that by “irregularity” Article 3(2) means something other than failure to comply with all the requirements of Article 3(1) — but there is no plausible “something other.”

Justice Brennan’s second argument is that the first sentence of Article 3(2) “quite clearly,” post, at 137 (emphasis in original), does not have the meaning we have described. As he reads that sentence, when it says that an irregular ticket “shall none the less be subject to the rules of this convention” it means to include among those “rules” the rule of the second sentence, that (as he interprets it) if a “regular passenger ticket” is not delivered the rule limiting liability does not apply. Though this is put forward as a separate argument, it obviously assumes the correctness of the first one, since if “passenger ticket” in the second sentence does not mean a “regular passenger ticket” the “rule” of that second sentence does not apply to the delivery of an “irregular” ticket, as opposed to the delivery of no ticket at all. Quite apart from that flaw, however, it is impossible to read the second sentence as setting forth a “rule” that is included among the “rules” referred to in the first sentence, because that second sentence begins with the word “Nevertheless,” It sets forth an exception to the operation of the first sentence — not a specification of something already included within it. The latter would be conveyed, not by a new sentence beginning “Nevertheless,” but by a new clause beginning “including the rule that.” As written, the second sentence plainly conveys the meaning that if the reason for the “absence” of a passenger ticket (covered by the first sentence) is that a passenger ticket was never delivered, the carrier shall “nevertheless” — despite the first sentence — be unable to avail himself of the rules excluding or limiting liability.

We may note that the alternative interpretation the concurrence believes it sees in the text — which would render the omission of any single particular listed in Article 3(1) a basis for imposing the sanction of the second sentence of Article 3(2) — is evidently not an interpretation that the concurrence itself is prepared to adopt, since it finds that to have been quite plainly rejected by the drafters. See post, at 146-147. Ultimately, then, even on its own terms the concurrence does not use the drafting history to resolve an ambiguity but rather to depart from any possible reading of the Treaty.

The relevant provisions of Sections II and III are as follows:

“SECTION II. BAGGAGE CHECK

“Article U

“(3) The baggage check shall contain the following particulars:

“(a) The place and date of issue;

“(b) The place of departure and of destination;

‘Yc) The name and address of the carrier or carriers;

“(d) The number of the passenger ticket;

“(e) A statement that delivery of the baggage will be made to the bearer of the baggage check;

“(f) The number and weight of the packages;

“(g) The amount of the value declared in accordance with article 22(2);

“(h) A statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.

“(4) The absence, irregularity, or loss of the baggage check shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of transportation which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this convention. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts baggage without a baggage cheek having been delivered, or if the baggage check does not contain the particulars set out at (d), (f), and (h) above, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of the convention which exclude or limit his liability.

“SECTION III. AIR WAYBILL

“Article 8

“The air waybill shall contain the following particulars:

“(a) The place and date of its execution;

“(b) The place of departure and of destination;

“(c) The agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case of necessity, and that if he exercies that right the alteration shall not have the effect of depriving the transportation of its international character.

“(d) The name and address of the consignor;

“(e) The name and address of the first carrier;

“(f) The name and address of the consignee, if the case so requires;

“(g) The nature of the goods;

“(h) The number of packages, the method of packing, and the particular marks or numbers upon them;

“(i) The weight, the quantity, the volume, or dimensions of the goods; “(j) The apparent condition of the goods and of the packing;

“(k) The freight, if it has been agreed upon, the date and place of payment, and the person who is to pay it;

“(l) If the goods are sent for payment on delivery, the price of the goods, and, if the case so requires, the amount of the expenses incurred; “(m) The amount of the value declared in accordance with article 22(2); “(n) The number of parts of the air waybill;

“(o) The documents handed to the carrier to accompany the air waybill; “(p) The time fixed for the completion of the transportation and a brief note of the route to be followed, if these matters have been agreed upon;

“(q) A statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention.

“Article 9

“If the carrier accepts goods without an air waybill having been made out, or if the air waybill does not contain all the particulars set out in article 8 (a) to (i), inclusive, and (q), the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his liability.”

Even if the text were less clear, its most natural meaning could properly be contradicted only by clear drafting history. It is interesting, therefore, that the concurrence, after performing the examination we consider inappropriate, concludes that it is “impossible to say with certainty what the treatymakers at Warsaw intended.” Post, at 146. One would think that would be enough to cause the concurrence to resort to the treaty’s text. Instead, however, the concurrence shifts to an entirely different mode of analysis — one that it could as well have employed at the outset were it not intent upon demonstrating the technique of pursuing drafting history to a dead end. In its last four pages, the concurrence assumes for the sake of argument that there is an “adequate notice” requirement in the Warsaw Convention — an assumption that it justifies by the fact that “[c]ourts in this country have generally read [such a] requirement into the Warsaw Convention.” Post, at 149. Of course they have read in such a requirement, and of course determining the validity of doing so — rather than assuming it — was the very reason we selected this case for review. The object of our granting writs of certiorari on points of statutory or treaty interpretation is to determine the correctness of fundamental points that lower courts have resolved, not to assume those points to be correct in order to decide particular cases on reasoning useless elsewhere. The concurrence’s analysis provides guidance in all cases where notice of liability limitation is provided in 8-point rather than 10-point type. Four-point type, we are told, “may well” yield a different result, see post, at 150— always assuming, of course (what the concurrence does not venture to decide) that the Convention contains an “adequate notice” requirement. As for 6-point type, we have no hint whether that might entail liability — if there is any liability for inadequate notice. We choose not to follow a mode of analysis that seems a wasteful expenditure of this Court’s time.