AP HC: Shutdown of Specific Unit Constitutes Closure, Workers Entitled to Compensation under S.25FFF  ||  P&H High Court: Over-Implication of Accused’s Relatives Turns Criminal Process Into Harassment  ||  Delhi HC: Denying Candidature of Physically Disabled Person Due to 'No Vacancy' Violates RPwD Act  ||  Delhi HC: Denying Candidature of Physically Disabled Person Due to 'No Vacancy' Violates RPwD Act  ||  Delhi HC: Denying Candidature of Physically Disabled Person Due to 'No Vacancy' Violates RPwD Act  ||  HP High Court: Possession of Intermediate Quantity of Opium Poppy Not Punishable under S.37 NDPS Act  ||  Delhi HC: Caste Abuse on Flyover Counts as 'Public View' Under SC/ST Act Even Without Witnesses  ||  Kerala High Court: Limitation Period Starts From Date Continuous Breach of Contract Comes to an End  ||  Delhi High Court: Renting or Leasing Residential Property for Residential Use Exempt from GST  ||  Delhi High Court: Banks Cannot Be Accused of Defamation, Calling a Company 'Fraud' Not Defamatory    

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs - (01 Dec 2015)

US Supreme Court dismisses claim against Austrian train operator

Civil

The US Supreme Court dismissed a suit against an Austrian train operator brought by an American woman who suffered severe injuries after falling onto railway tracks in Austria while attempting to board a train. Carol Sachs claimed that OBB had sold her the Eurail pass in the United States, sufficing for the exception of ‘commercial activity’ under Section 1605 Title 28 United States Code, which otherwise provided jurisdictional immunity to foreign states. The Court rejected her claims on the basis that the action was “based upon” OBB’s conduct in Austria and could not be adjudicated in the United States. It relied on an earlier decision in Saudi Arabia et al v. Nelson wherein the Court had determined that “particular conduct on which the action is based…[elements] if proven would entitle plaintiff to relief”. In the instant case, the Ninth Circuit court had erred in applying the test to a single element, whereas Saudi Arabia v Nelson required identifying all elements of the action.

Tags : UNITED STATES   SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY   AUSTRIA   INJURY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved