An Airline's Liability for In-flight Injuries to International Travelers
Domestic travelers can hold the airline liable only if their injuries are caused by the airline’s negligence. But if the passenger is traveling internationally, then treaties called the Montreal and Warsaw Conventions apply. Under the Conventions, whether the airline was negligent is for the most part irrelevant. An airline is responsible only if the passenger’s injury was caused by an “accident.” So, for an international traveler, the key question is what, exactly, qualifies as an “accident.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “accident” to mean “an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.” Certainly, an aircraft running off the end of the runway would qualify as an accident. But there are plenty of injury-producing events which present more difficult questions.
Here’s what the courts have said:
- Accident: A passenger is injured when a fellow passenger opens an overhead bin and liquor bottles fall out.
- Not an Accident: A passenger slips and falls on plastic bag left in aisle (reasoning: after long flight, it would not be “unusual” to encounter trash in the aisle).
- Accident: A passenger burned by tea when tea spilled from tray table because the passenger seated directly in front of the injured passenger caused a “jolt” that upset the tray table.
- Not an Accident: A passenger falls while trying to walk up a broken escalator.
- Accident: A passenger seated near the smoking section asks to be moved, the flight attendant refuses, the passenger has an asthma attack and dies.
- Not an Accident: A passenger dies from an airline-induced blood clot.
- Not an Accident: One passenger falls on and breaks the arm of another passenger (reasoning: the passenger decision to try to climb over his fellow passenger not related to the aircraft’s operation.)
More at Chris Cotter’s excellent article: Recent Case Law Addressing Three Contentious Issues in the Montreal Convention.
here they were supposed to be. But it appears that the sponsors failed to ensure that the area was safe. Turner v. Mandalay would thus seem to support the victims’ claims for compensation, not undercut it. .jpg)
employee to approve a race course, the course design must meet certain requirements. .jpg)
it because of a defect in the design of the electronics that control the fuel flow to the engine. 
(1)(1).jpg)
for the loss of a child. And though a wife can sue for the death of her husband, she can recover only lost financial support. No compensation is allowed for the loss of the husband's love and affection.
manufacturers are required by regulation to provide a flight manual when it delivers the aircraft to the customer. The manual must be carried in the aircraft at all times thereafter. Therefore, the manual was properly considered to be an aircraft "part." Because the manual at issue was more than 18 years old, GARA applied to protect the manufacturer from liability for any errors. (1).jpg)
A's wording is broad enough to cover any accident, not just shipping accidents. Therefore, it applies with equal force to aviation accidents occurring on the high seas.
members from suing the government regardless of whether the crash was caused by the negligence of a military mechanic, air traffic controller, dispatcher or pilot.
to proceed to trial against the defendant who appears blameworthy. Experienced aviation lawyers think carefully, however, before following that course, for fear of creating an "empty chair" in the courtroom.
rer accountable. At least he can when the aircraft involved in the accident was a civilian aircraft. If, however, the airplane or helicopter was a military aircraft, then the rules change..jpg)
But in an excellent .jpg)
Rather, the FAA certifies aircraft based largely on the say-so of engineers who, though designated by the FAA, are in fact employees of the manufacturer seeking the certification. The issue of whether an aircraft's design is defective is thus appropriately left to the judgment of an independent jury. In short, the fact that the FAA certified a design doesn't really mean all that much. 
The Discretionary Function Exception states that a victim can’t sue the federal government for bad decisions that the government left to the federal employee's best judgment. Regardless of how careless the employee was, the government is immune from suit. 
protections of MICRA, because the ambulance company was properly considered a “health care provider.” The ruling extended the umbrella of MICRA's protection from doctors to ambulance drivers, at least when those drivers are licensed as EMT’s..jpg)
Putting aside the question of whether pursuing the claims is the right thing to do -- some say they should simply count their blessings -- do the passengers have any claims to begin with?
