NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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