United Flight 935: Airline's Obligation to Compensate Passengers Injured by Turbulence
At least 10 people aboard United Flight 935 were hurt when the aircraft encountered severe turbulence. Is the airline responsible for compensating its injured passengers?
Because Flight 935 was an international flight, a treaty known as the Montreal Convention governs the passengers' claims. The Montreal Convention makes the airline liable for any injuries suffered on board the aircraft due to an "accident." The definition of "accident" includes an encounter with severe turbulence. The passenger need not prove that the airline was at fault for the accident. Under the Convention, the airline is automatically liable.
Some courts have ruled that while an airline is automatically liable for any "accident" on an international flight, its obligation to compensate an injured passenger may be reduced if the passenger himself contributed to his injury. One issue that typically arises in turbulence cases is whether the injured passenger should have been wearing his seat belt. In this case, it appears the seat belt sign was off and the turbulence competely unexpected, so that should not be an issue.
As discussed here, the Convention entitles the passengers to be compensated for the emotional distress they have suffered, but only if they also suffered some sort of physical injury as well.
Finally, as discussed here, the passengers are entitled to sue the airline for compensation in the United States, and in particular in California (Los Angeles or San Francisco), regardless of their citizenship or final destination.
I really don't understand how an airplane hit with unexpected turbulence or something like a meteor can be held responsible. It is not possible for a pilot to foresee this. I think it should be considered an act of God and anyone who is injured by these flukes should be thanking God for having a pilot who knew how to respond to these acts thus saving their lives.
Diana-
In the early days of international aviation, industry leaders argued that they needed a cap on their liability for aviation disasters or the industry would not survive. As a result, the Warsaw Convention was agreed to. It capped liability for international aviation accidents at a relatively low amount. Until fairly recently, the cap was $75,000. In return, the passenger's family did not need to prove that the airline did anything wrong to obtain compensation. (Before the days of flight data recorders, that was often nearly impossible.)
Some years ago, the treaty was modified, with the industry's consent. The cap was raised to about $150,000, where it stands today. But a passenger or his family is stuck with the cap only where the airline proves that it was completely free from fault.
If the airline cannot prove that it was free from fault, there is no cap and the passenger can seek full compensation for his injuries. In accidents resulting from turbulence, it is very hard for an airline to prove it was "free from fault." Given modern technology and weather reporting, an airline should be able to avoid most encounters, or at least warn the passengers to fasten their seatbelts.