Advert

Some advert will be running here.

Air transport the way to connecting the world!

 

 

  ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NO: 1

 

a)

Mr. Karim is an old Indian passenger who wanted to go to a lavatory during the flight and he slipped and broke his ankle while he started walking towards the lavatory.

 

  • The same situation has happened with Ms. Barclay. In 2004 she was a passenger on a British Airways flight from the US to London. In the course of reaching her seat she slipped on a strip embedded in the floor of the aircraft and injured her knee.
  • The Court of Appeal had to consider whether her injuries were caused by an accident within the meaning of Article 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 which provides that “The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” Same procedures will be followed for Mr. Karim also.
  • The Held was Article 17.1 contemplates, by the term “accident”, a distinct event, not being any part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft, which happens independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger. There was no accident here that was external to Ms. Barclay, no event that happened independently of anything done or omitted by her. It was an instance of “the passenger’s particular, personal or peculiar reaction to the normal operation of the aircraft”. Accordingly her appeal failed. So for Mr. Karim also appeal will be failed if his injury is not due to the external issues or conditions.
  • Thus A slip on an aero plane is not an accident within the meaning of Montreal Convention 1999. So the airline will not be liable to pay passenger for the above reason.
  • But, if it is found that the Indian passenger was upset due to unusual or unexpected condition of aircraft (turbulence) which caused him to get injured. As we realize this passenger was not having any life problem or sickness. His life was in a good condition. He attended his journey without any kind of upsetting and this came as a result of turbulence due to bad weather condition which we consider as an aircraft disturbances led to the injury to passenger.
  • Then we can say this accident took place onboard and the convention considered as any accident happened onboard as result of unusual condition of aircraft this accident may be compensated by the airline.
  • Due to above reasons, the maximum amount will be liable as the Montreal convention says in its article 21 is about 100,000 SDR.