Tag: injury compensation

If an airplane passenger suffers an injury as a result of an accident on an international flight or itinerary, their claim for damages is governed by the “Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air”, frequently called the “Montreal Convention” for short. The Montreal Convention establishes uniform liability guidelines for air carriers and provides the mechanism for compensating passengers following accidents on international flights.   

In previous cases decided under the Montreal Convention, claims for purely mental distress could not be brought against a carrier unless that mental distress resulted from a physical injury that took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. There must have been a “causal connection” between the physical injury and the mental injury (see, for example, Wettlaufer v. Air Transat A.T. Inc., 2013 BCSC 1245). However, the 2017 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Decision in Doe v. Etihad Airways (Doe v. Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C., No. 16-1042 [6th Cir. 2017]) seems to have departed away from “causal connection” test and indicates that mental injuries accompanying physical injuries as a result of an accident may be compensable.

In Doe, the plaintiff was on an international flight from Abu Dhabi to Chicago with carriage performed by the defendant airline. Doe’s tray table remained in the open position during the flight as the knob used to secure the tray table had fallen off. Doe placed the knob into the seat pocket in front of her. When in-cabin flight attendants asked Doe to stow her tray table prior to landing, Doe attempted to explain the situation and in the process of reaching into the seat pocket for the knob, pricked her finger on a hypodermic needle left by a passenger on a previous flight. Doe sued the carrier for the physical injury caused by the prick, and the mental distress from fear of contracting a disease.

The Sixth Circuit Appeals Court reversed the decision of the District Court which granted partial summary judgment in favour of the carrier against the mental distress claims of the plaintiff. In doing so, the Appeals Court decided that a physical injury is still needed to recover mental distress but it does not need a “causal connection” to the mental injury. In other words, the emotional trauma does not need to be a direct cause of the physical injury; it simply needs to be traceable to the injury that occurred due to the accident.

The decision in Doe has widened the possible compensation award for those passengers injured because of accidents during carriage, embarkation or disembarkation. It must be understood that although Doe has modified the prevailing understanding of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, it does not mean that mental injury without a corresponding physical injury caused by an accident will not attract a damage award.  

If you were injured during a flight or while embarking/disembarking a flight on an international itinerary, contact an experienced personal injury lawyer today. We will ensure that you receive the compensation you’re entitled to.

Have a question about this topic or a different legal topic? Contact us for a free consultation. Reach us via phone at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

When an air traveler is injured on an international flight, understanding how to bring a claim for compensation and which law applies to the claim can be confusing. Fortunately, Canada (along with 133 other states) has ratified an international treaty known as the “Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air”, frequently called the “Montreal Convention” for short. The Montreal Convention establishes liability guidelines for air carriers and provides legal recourse for passengers who were injured while traveling on an international itinerary.

The Montreal Convention

The Montreal Convention recognizes protection of air travelers interests and compensation for injuries they have suffered as a result of an “accident” during a flight or when the passenger is embarking or disembarking an aircraft. Unlike a standard injury claim, a claim brought under the Montreal Convention has a presumption of negligence against the carrier. This means that when a passenger is injured during their international air travels, it is presumed that the airline was negligent. In legal terms, the carrier’s liability is “strict” – meaning that they are liable for the full extent of the passenger’s damages if the damages claimed by the passenger do not exceed 128,821 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) (approximately $249,000.00 CAD). If the claim for damages exceeds 128,821 SDRs, the carrier can limit its liability by proving the damage was caused by the negligence or other wrongful act of the person claiming compensation.

The strict liability of the Montreal Convention is of extreme benefit to injured passengers, but it only applies to international carriage. This begs the question: what exactly constitutes an international carriage under the Montreal Convention?

An International Itinerary under the Montreal Convention

As an example, someone flying on a direct flight from Amsterdam, Netherlands to Toronto, Canada is clearly traveling on an international flight. This person, if they suffered an injury caused by an “accident” in-flight or during embarking/disembarking the aircraft, would be able to file an injury claim under the Montreal Convention.

But what about an injury on a domestic flight that is part of an international itinerary? If you’re traveling domestically as part of a multi-flight international itinerary, the Montreal Convention regards that domestic leg as part of international carriage if both parties (i.e. the carrier and the passenger) had knowledge that the domestic flight was part of a longer international flight itinerary. Because of this, two passengers on the same flight, who suffer an injury due to the exact same event, could have completely different legal remedies available to them. Let’s look at an example to help clarify this.

Passengers Injured on the Same Flight, but with Different Legal Recourse

A man from Vancouver is in Florida for vacation. For his journey home, he takes two flights, one from Miami to Chicago, and another from Chicago to Vancouver. On the flight from Miami to Chicago, the man is injured when luggage in the overhead compartment falls out and strikes his leg. He wants to seek compensation for the injury sustained. Even though the flight he was injured on was a domestic US flight, this US leg was part of an international itinerary (planning to fly from the US to Canada); therefore, he is eligible to bring a claim under the Montreal Convention against the carrier.

On the other hand, the woman who was sitting next to this man on the Miami to Chicago flight had a one flight itinerary that began in Miami and ended in Chicago. She was also injured by the luggage, suffering an injured wrist. This woman would not be able to make a claim under the Montreal Convention because she was not traveling on an itinerary with international carriage. Her only recourse would be to sue the carrier for negligence, all the elements and breach of which she must prove in order for her claim to succeed.

As an air traveler who was injured, it’s important to distinguish between an international itinerary and a domestic itinerary. Being injured on a domestic flight either before or after you were on an international flight affords legal remedies under the Montreal Convention. If you were injured during a flight or while embarking/disembarking a flight on an international itinerary, contact an experienced personal injury lawyer today. We will ensure that you receive the compensation you’re entitled to.

Have a question about this topic or a different legal topic? Contact us for a free consultation. Reach us via phone at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.