Tramontana v. SA Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
350 F.2d 468 (1964)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Vincent Tramontana (decedent), a resident of Maryland, was killed while flying over Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on board a United States Navy airplane that collided with a Brazilian commercial aircraft. The other plane was operated by a predecessor of Varig Airlines (Varig) (defendants), a Brazilian corporation. Beatrice Tramontana (Tramontana) (plaintiff), the decedent’s wife and also a Maryland resident, filed a wrongful-death suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that Varig’s negligence had caused the accident. Tramontana sought $250,000 in damages. Tramontana’s claim was based on a Brazilian statute that provided a cause of action for injury or death resulting from negligent aircraft operations in Brazil but limited recovery to 100,000 Brazilian cruzeiros, the equivalent of $170.00. Tramontana argued that, based upon the District of Columbia forum’s strong policy favoring unlimited recovery for wrongful death, Brazil’s damages cap should not apply. Tramontana urged the court to disregard the cap because the value of Brazilian cruzeiros had decreased relative to the dollar. Varig consented to the entry of a $170.00 judgment in favor of Tramontana. The district court also awarded a judgment in favor of Varig, effectively dismissing the amount of the claim that exceeded $170.00. Tramontana appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McGowan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
