High Court Hears Air Trauma Case : Law: Passengers aboard a jet that avoided a crash want to sue, claiming mental injuries. An international treaty is the key to the dispute.

The jumbo jetliner had just taken off for a short flight from Miami to Nassau in the Bahamas when its engines failed and it began losing altitude.

The crew calmly alerted passengers to get ready for a crash landing in the Atlantic. However, after a few terrifying minutes, one engine was restarted, and the big jet glided onto a Miami runway.

Can any of the 162 passengers on board sue the airline for emotional trauma?

That question was before the Supreme Court on Monday in a case that could have an enormous impact on the rights of international travelers and the liability of airlines.

On May 5, 1983, an Eastern Airlines wide-body jet almost ditched in the Atlantic because mechanics had failed to replace O-rings on the engines, causing a loss of oil pressure.

Although none of the passengers suffered physical injury, many said they were emotionally traumatized.

Last year, an appeals court in Atlanta ruled that these passengers can win damages from Eastern for their mental injuries. The ruling was based on the 1929 Warsaw Convention, which governs international air travel.

Airline lawyers said that the decision, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would open the way for passengers who experience turbulence or a single-engine shutdown to sue for damages.

“They can say: ‘When you shut down that engine, it sure scared me,”’ Eastern attorney John Michael Murray told the high court.

The Warsaw treaty has been criticized as outdated. The survivors of passengers killed on an international flight can recover only $75,000--a fraction of what they could receive if the death occurred on a domestic flight. However, the treaty says that the airlines must pay the damages resulting from any “accident,” regardless of whether they were at fault.

For the justices, the key issue is how to define the French term lesion corporelle. The 1929 treaty was written in French and says that the airlines are liable for a death, wounding or toute autre lesion corporelle suffered by passengers.

The State Department translated this term as “any other bodily injury.” But recently, legal scholars concluded that it is more correctly translated as any other “personal injury.” The appeals court adopted that translation and said that it included mental as well as physical suffering.

“It is a broad term that covers any personal injury,” said Miami attorney Joel Eaton, who is representing 26 passengers from the Eastern flight.

For most of the lawyers’ oral arguments, the justices inquired about French law, French terminology and the Napoleonic Code. But several justices wondered aloud whether a scary moment in flight is reason enough to win damages.

“I’ve been on a half-dozen planes where the engines fell out. Do I get some money?” asked Justice Thurgood Marshall.

To that half-kidding inquiry, Eaton stressed that the Eastern passengers win damages only if they can persuade a jury that they suffered a true emotional trauma.

A ruling in the case (Eastern Airlines vs. Floyd, 89-1598) can be expected early next year.

Air crashes on domestic flights are governed by state law, and thus the high court’s ruling will have no direct effect on them.

In other actions, the court:

--Let stand a ruling requiring the city of Norfolk, Va., to elect its seven City Council members from districts (City of Norfolk vs. Collins, 89-989). An appeals court in Richmond, Va., concluded that citywide elections discriminated against black voters. Though blacks make up more than a third of city residents, they have elected only one black councilman in recent years.

--Let stand a ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing a police officer to be sued for displaying “deliberate indifference” to the safety of a citizen (Ostrander vs. Wood, 89-1409). The high court action clears the way for a trial in a suit filed by a Tacoma, Wash., woman. Police arrested her boyfriend for drunk driving in 1984, leaving her stranded in a high-crime area where she was subsequently raped.

In the past, the high court has said that public officials can be sued if a person in custody is hurt. But under the Constitution, officials and the police have no general “duty to protect” citizens from harm, the court said last year. Without comment, the court refused to hear the policeman’s appeal Monday. But the justices could enter the case after the trial if the policeman is ordered to pay damages to the raped woman.

--Let stand a New York court ruling forbidding utilities to include charitable contributions in their costs (New York Telephone vs. Cahill, 90-255). The New York Telephone Co. gives money to charity but had counted these contributions in their rate-making formula. In May, the state’s highest court said that this practice forces customers to subsidize causes and groups that they might oppose.

--Let stand an appeals court order requiring several suburban Kansas City school districts to accept black students bused from the city (Lee’s Summit vs. Naylor, 90-391). A federal judge in 1985 ordered the “voluntary” integration plan between city and suburban schools. But although black students had applied, none were admitted as the districts fought over whether local or state governments should pay the extra costs involved.