SC: General Reference to a Tender’s Arbitration Clause Does Not Incorporate it into a Contract  ||  Supreme Court: Partnership Veil May be Lifted to Detect Illegal Sub-Letting Arrangements  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Dearness Relief For Pensioners than Employees' DA is Arbitrary under Article 14  ||  Supreme Court: NCLT Should Not Assess Merits of Pre-Existing Dispute in Section 9 Applications  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies that the Right to Vote is Not a Fundamental Right But a Statutory Right  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Minor’s Voluntary Elopement With a Lover Does Not Constitute Kidnapping  ||  Bombay HC: Staring at Co-Worker’s Chest is Morally Wrong But Does Not Amount to Voyeurism under IPC  ||  Delhi HC: Loss of Confidence in Employees Entrusted With Funds is Valid Ground For Termination  ||  Allahabad High Court: Gram Nyayalaya Has Jurisdiction to Decide Maintenance and Execution Petitions  ||  J&K&L HC: Non-Publication of Sec 4(1) Notice in Gazette and Local Newspapers Vitiates Acquisition    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved