When To Sue Your Airlines
Baher Saleh
International Associate
Introduction
When you’re jetting off to a foreign land, the last thing you want to think about is the possibility of something going wrong with your flight. Unfortunately, delays, cancellations, lost luggage, and even personal injuries can occur during air travel.
The question then arises: is it appropriate to take legal action against an airline? Before delving into this complex issue, it’s essential to understand the Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention standardizes international air travel laws, covering passengers’ rights and airlines’ liabilities worldwide.
Adopted in 1999 and ratified by 130+ countries, the Montreal Convention sets universal rules for airline liability, passenger rights, and compensation in international travel disputes.
Airlines’ Obligations: Contractual, Not Tortious
When exploring the legal grounds for suing an airline, a common question arises: Do airlines’ obligations to passengers’ stem from tort law or from a contract? Article 3(5) of the Montreal Convention makes this distinction crystal clear. It states, “Non-compliance with the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage, which shall, nonetheless, be subject to the rules of this Convention including those relating to limitation of liability.”
What this essentially means is that the obligations airlines have toward their passengers are contractual in nature, arising from the “contract of carriage” that is formed when a ticket is purchased.
Scope and Limitations of Airlines’ Liability: Articles 17, 19, and 20 of the Montreal Convention
Article 17: Death, Injury, and Baggage Damage
Article 17 holds airlines liable for passenger injury or death during flight or boarding and for checked baggage damage under their control.
The airline isn’t liable for baggage damage caused by inherent defects under the Montreal Convention’s contract of carriage.
Article 19: Liability for Delays
Article 19 addresses the carrier’s liability for damage caused by delays in the carriage of passengers, baggage, or cargo. The rule is straightforward: if there’s a delay, the carrier is liable for the damage it causes.
However, there’s a significant condition.Carriers avoid liability by proving due diligence or that damage was unavoidable, such as from uncontrollable factors like severe weather.
Article 20: Exoneration from Liability
Article 20 allows carriers to reduce or avoid liability if the claimant’s negligence caused or contributed to the damage.This is a critical point for passengers to understand. Your own actions, if negligent or wrongful, can undermine your claim for compensation.
Limits on Compensation: Articles 21 and 22 of the Montreal Convention
Article 21: Death or Injury of Passengers
Article 21 sets a 100,000 SDR liability minimum for carriers in death or injury claims, which they cannot exclude or limit. However, the carrier may not be liable for damages exceeding this amount if they prove either:
– The damage wasn’t due to their negligence or any wrongful acts or omissions by their servants or agents.
– The damage was solely due to the negligence or wrongful acts or omissions of a third party.
This rule caps airline compensation and shifts the burden if damages exceed 100,000 SDRs, allowing liability limits.
Article 22: Delays, Baggage, and Cargo
This article puts forth limitations on what airlines must pay for delays, baggage issues, and cargo damages. Specifically:
– Liability for delays is capped at 4,150 SDRs per passenger.
– Liability for baggage issues is capped at 1,000 SDRs per passenger, unless a special declaration of interest was made at the time of check-in, in which case, the limit might be higher.
– Cargo damages are capped at 17 SDRs per kilogram.
The article further clarifies that these limits do not apply if it is proven that the damage was intentional or recklessly caused by the carrier, its servants, or agents.
What If Your Loss Exceeds These Limits?
One of the most critical questions passengers are facing what to do when their loss significantly exceeds the limits set by the Montreal Convention. While these limits set a default maximum payout, they’re not absolute barriers to greater compensation. For instance, paragraph 5 of Article 22 explicitly states carriers lose these limits if they intentionally cause damage or act recklessly, knowing damage will likely result.
Paragraph 6 of Article 22 allows courts to award costs and litigation expenses beyond capped direct damages.
The Last Resort: Legal Action as per Article 22(6) of the Montreal Convention
If the amount of compensation remains a point of contention, passengers are not without options. Article 22(6) of the Montreal Convention provides a legal pathway for pursuing additional compensation through the courts. Before initiating legal action, however, it’s essential to understand the elements of breach that need to be proven for a successful claim. These are:
Causation
To address damages from a breach of contract or tort, one must establish causation. In other words, the party claiming loss must prove that the other party’s breach caused that loss. This requires proving both factual causation and legal causation.
The principle of legal causation confirms that, even when factual causation exists, the law may determine the breach did not cause the harm or loss. In this regard, the courts adopt a “break the chain of causation” approach between the breach and the harm.
Lord Bingham explained in Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13
A novus actus interveniens breaks causation to fairly avoid liability for damage caused by independent, unrelated acts.
Remoteness
In assessing the damages and addressing remoteness of the damage, it is worth noting that the traditional test of remoteness, which is in essence a test of foreseeability, is set out in Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch J70. This test operates as follows: – A loss will only be recoverable if it was “in the contemplation of the parties”, that is, foreseeable.
- The loss must be foreseeable not merely as being possible, but as being “not unlikely”.
- The loss must be foreseeable at the date of contracting, not the date of breach.
- It is not the precise circumstances that occur that must be foreseeable, but the type or kind of loss.
Conclusion
Understanding the intricacies of the Montreal Convention and the elements of breach can significantly impact the outcome of a legal battle for compensation. When all other avenues for compensation have been exhausted, the courts offer a potential pathway for passengers to seek the damages they believe are justly owed to them, beyond the default limitations of the Montreal Convention.
A warm welcome to GOOD LAW INTERNATIONAL. To learn more about us and our practice areas, we invite you to browse through our website and contact us or book an appointment.
Disclaimer: This Article Does Not Constitute Legal Advice
This article explains the Montreal Convention but doesn’t replace personalized legal advice for individual circumstances. The article is intended for informational purposes only and should not replace competent legal consultation.
