| OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 5, 2015 Decided December 1, 2015 | |
| Full case name | OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG, Petitioner v. CAROL P. SACHS |
| Docket no. | 13–1067 |
| Citations | 577 U.S. ___ (more) 136 S. Ct. 390; 193 L. Ed. 2d 269; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7670; 84 U.S.L.W. 4011 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Sachs v. Republic of Austria, 737 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2013) |
| Holding | |
| Although the plaintiff purchased a rail ticket in the United States, an injury that occurred on a rail platform in Austria was "based upon" conduct that occurred solely in Austria; the plaintiff's suit therefore fell outside the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) | |
OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred a California resident from bringing suit against an Austrian railroad in federal district court.[1] The case arose after a California resident suffered traumatic personal injuries while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria.[2] She then filed a lawsuit against the railroad in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which she alleged the railroad was responsible for causing her injuries.[3] Because the railroad was owned by the Austrian government, the railroad claimed that the lawsuit should be barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides immunity to foreign sovereigns in tort suits filed in the United States.[4] In response, the plaintiff argued that her suit should be permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's commercial activity exception because she purchased her rail ticket in the United States.[5]
Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the plaintiff's injury was "based upon" conduct that occurred solely in Austria, and the suit therefore fell outside the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception.[6] Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that "the conduct constituting the gravamen of Sachs's suit plainly occurred abroad".[7] Commentators have identified this case as part of "a series of rulings" in which the Supreme Court of the United States "has limited the use of U.S. courts as a forum for adjudicating wrongs that took place primarily outside the country".[8] Although some analysts suggest the case has a "larger meaning", other analysts have described the Court's ruling as "less momentous than we might have expected".[9]
- ^ OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, No. 13–1067, 577 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1–2 (2015).
- ^ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1–3.
- ^ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1, 3.
- ^ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1, 3–4.
- ^ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1, 3–4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)).
- ^ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1–2, 10–11.
- ^ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 8.
- ^ Tony Mauro, Justices' Austrian Train Ruling Further Restricts Foreign Claims in U.S. Courts, The National Law Journal, December 1, 2015.
- ^ Compare Lyle Denniston, Constitution Check: Do U.S. laws protect Americans traveling overseas?, Constitution Daily, December 3, 2015 (noting the case has a "larger meaning") with Amy Howe, First decision of the Term is a unanimous one in Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case, SCOTUSblog (December 1, 2015, 2:50 PM) (noting that the case was "less momentous than we might have expected").
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search