Klein v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Neal Klein, an Infant, by Shulamit Klein, His Parent and Natural Guardian v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
In an action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 1, 1972, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first three causes of action and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the same causes. Order modified by striking from the first decretal paragraph thereof everything after the words “ defendant’s motion is granted” and by adding to said paragraph, immediately after said word “ granted ”, the following: “ only as to the first cause of action and denied as to the second and third causes.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants. Under the facts as brought out in the affidavits, we believe that the questions concerning the guarding and use of the conveyor belt which caused the injury to the infant plaintiff should be more fully explored at a trial. We agree with Special Term, however, that plaintiffs, having gotten off the aircraft and arrived safely within the terminal, had disembarked within the meaning of article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (49 U. S. Stat. 3014) (of. MacDonalds. Air Camada, 439 F. 2d 1402,1405 ). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Cohalan, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(injury on baggage conveyor belt in terminal at Lod International Airport)
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.