Gluckman v. American Airlines, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
844 F. Supp. 151 (1994)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Upon graduating high school, Andrew Gluckman (plaintiff) took a camping trip to Arizona with friends. While there, Gluckman encountered a golden retriever, whom he adopted and named Floyd. Gluckman was set to return home to New York via an American Airlines, Inc. (American) (defendant) flight. Gluckman called a ticket agent and was told that he could pay for an excess baggage ticket for a special crate for Floyd to travel in, plus an additional price for his transport. Gluckman paid for both and received a ticket that contained a tariff in small font, which stated that American’s limit of liability for property was $1,250. American crews then placed Floyd in the unairconditioned baggage compartment of the plane. Due to flight delays and the Arizona heat, Floyd suffered a heat stroke and later died. Gluckman filed suit against American under several theories of tort. In addition to the tort claims, Gluckman filed a breach-of-contract claim for failure to return Floyd in the same condition received. American argued that the correct measure of damages for breach of contract was the $1,250 limit stated in the tariff. American thus filed a motion for summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kram, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.