Doe

Doe v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Good Law
160 Cal. App. 4th 1500·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 374·73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 541
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 20, 2008B192865California5,505 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

In the underlying action, Jane Doe (Doe), a minor, asserted claims against United Air Lines, Inc. (United), arising out of a sexual assault. After granting summary judgment in favor of United, the trial court granted Doe’s motion for a new trial on her claims against United. United appealed from the new trial order, and Doe asserted a protective cross-appeal regarding the grant of summary judgment. We reverse the order granting a new trial and affirm the grant of summary judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 16, 2004, John Doe, acting as Doe’s guardian ad litem, filed a complaint on her behalf against United and Richard Samson. The complaint alleged that on August 4, 2003, Samson sexually assaulted and molested Doe while they were passengers on an airliner operated by United, and that United wrongfully failed to protect Doe from Samson. The complaint contained a tort claim against Samson, and claims for negligence and premises liability against United.

United sought summary judgment on Doe’s claims, contending she could not show that she had suffered bodily injury within the meaning of the treaty known as the “Warsaw Convention,” officially entitled…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.