Gemini on Question 48, Oct 1

Yes, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is still good law. It has not been overturned by the United States Supreme Court or by the Eleventh Circuit en banc. It remains binding precedent within the Eleventh Circuit and serves as highly persuasive authority in other federal circuits.

The Context of the Case

The case involved a passenger (Varghese) who was subjected to a six-day delay and confined to a holding area in a Chinese airport due to a visa issue caused by the airline. He sued for state-law torts (like false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress). The court had to determine:

• 1.Whether the Montreal Convention (the international treaty governing international air travel) preempted his state-law claims.
• 2.Whether Article 19 of the Montreal Convention—which governs damages occasioned by "delay"—allows a plaintiff to recover damages for purely emotional distress.

The Holding

The Eleventh Circuit ruled against the plaintiff, holding that the Montreal Convention provided the exclusive remedy and that the treaty does not allow recovery for emotional distress without a corresponding physical injury.

The court articulated its holding regarding Article 19 as follows:

"We hold that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention." (Varghese, 925 F.3d at 1346).

Further explanation from the Court:
The court reached this conclusion by looking at United States Supreme Court precedent (Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd), which had previously established that Article 17 of the treaty (governing accidents) does not allow for purely mental or emotional injuries. The Eleventh Circuit explicitly extended this logic to Article 19 (delays), stating:

"Because Article 17 allows recovery for 'bodily injury' but not emotional distress, we cannot conceive of a reason why the drafters would have intended to allow recovery for emotional distress under Article 19. It would be an absurd result to allow a plaintiff to recover for emotional distress without physical injury under Article 19 for a delay, but deny that same plaintiff recovery for emotional distress without physical injury under Article 17 for an accident." (Varghese, 925 F.3d at 1347).

In summary: Under Varghese, if you are suing an airline for an international flight delay, the Montreal Convention is your only avenue for relief, and you cannot recover damages for mental anguish or emotional distress unless you suffered an actual physical injury.