The case you are referring to is Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644 (2004). Here is a summary of the case report based on the requirements you provided:
- **Name**: Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644 (2004)
- **Facts**: The case arose from the death of Dr. Abid Hanson, a passenger on Olympic Airways Flight 417 from Cairo, Egypt, via Athens, Greece, to New York City in the United States. Dr. Hanson had asthma and was sensitive to secondhand smoke. After boarding the flight, he and his wife discovered that their seats were only three rows in front of the smoking section. A flight attendant refused their three requests to move Dr. Hanson. As the smoking noticeably increased, Dr. Hanson walked toward the front of the plane to get fresher air. He then received medical assistance but died¹.
- **Procedural History**: The case was filed as a wrongful-death suit in state court and was removed to federal court. The District Court found Olympic Airways liable for Dr. Hanson’s death, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed².
- **Legal Issues**: The main legal issue in this case was whether the conduct of the flight attendant constituted an "accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, which would make the air carrier liable for a passenger’s death or bodily injury caused by an “accident” occurring on an international flight².
- **Argument of the Parties**: Olympic Airways argued that the flight attendant's refusal to reseat Dr. Hanson did not constitute an "accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. On the other hand, Rubina Husain argued that it did constitute an "accident" because it was unexpected and unusual in light of industry standards, Olympic policy, and the simple nature of the requested accommodation².
- **Rule of Law**: The rule of law applied in this case was Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, which states that an air carrier is liable for a passenger’s death or bodily injury caused by an “accident” occurring on an international flight².
- **Holding**: The Supreme Court held that the conduct here constitutes an “accident” under Article 17².
- **Reasoning of the Court**: The Court reasoned that the flight attendant’s refusal to assist a passenger in a medical crisis was external to him and unexpected and unusual in light of industry standards, Olympic policy, and the simple nature of the requested accommodation².