A passenger suffered from lung disease. The airline denied him the use of his supplemental oxygen. As a result, six months later, the passenger died.
The family sued the airline within two years of the passenger’s death. Normally, that’s within the statute of limitations. But because the flight was an international flight, the Montreal Convention applied. And the Montreal Convention requires suits to be brought within two years of the aircraft’s arrival at the destination, not two years from the injury or death. Because the family’s claim was filed two years and three months after the plane landed, the trial court dismissed the suit as being brought too late. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
The Convention is rooted in a one-sided deal struck many years ago to protect a fledgling aviation industry. From the Convention’s venue restrictions, to its limitation on recovery for emotional distress, the Convention leads to results that offend any sense of basic justice or fair play.
The Convention’s time limit for bringing suit is just one more unfair provision. Let’s say that a passenger is badly injured in an accident and dies from complications three years later. It would have been impossible for the passenger’s family to bring a lawsuit within two years from the aircraft’s arrival, because the family’s claim would not have accrued by then. In that situation, even though the airline caused the death, the family would have no recourse at all.
One justice, Justice Pregerson, dissented noting the Convention was unjust.
Because of the unfair and unconscionable result in this case and perhaps others, I hope that the Montreal Convention will be revisited and revised to protect families like the Narayanans.
That won’t happen any time soon. Even if there was widespread international support for amending the Convention – and there isn’t – the process would take many, many years.
The case is Narayanan v. British Airways.