Supreme Court: Non-Signatory That is Not a Veritable Party Cannot Invoke an Arbitration Clause  ||  SC: Bail Can't be Cancelled For Police Non-Appearance Once Chargesheet is Filed and Trial is Attended  ||  SC: New Arbitration Bill Fails To Provide a Statutory Appeal Against Tribunal Termination Orders  ||  SC: Employees Who Resign or Retire After Five Years of Service Are Entitled to Receive Gratuity  ||  SC: Employees Who Resign or Retire After Five Years of Service Are Entitled to Receive Gratuity  ||  Supreme Court: Higher Courts Should Avoid Unnecessary Remand of Cases to Lower Courts  ||  J&K&L HC: Under SARFAESI Act, Borrower's Right To Redeem a Secured Asset Ends With Auction Notice  ||  Calcutta HC: Income Tax Returns Can Be Used to Assess Victim's Income; ?39 Lakh Compensation Granted  ||  Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing    

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