The Interpretation Of The Word 'Accident' Within The Meaning Of The Montreal Convention: The Decision In Arthern V Ryanair DAC [2023] 46 (KB)

• Published date: 07 February 2023
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Aviation, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Deka Chambers
• Author: Ms Sarah Prager

In a recent decision on appeal Farbey J reconsidered the approach to be taken to the interpretation of the word 'accident' within the meaning of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention on the Carriage of Passengers by Air.

The Court reviewed the international and domestic caselaw on the issue and commented on the recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this respect, preferring the American and English courts' approach to interpretation of the Convention to that of the CJEU. As a result, the court upheld the conclusion at first instance that the presence on the floor of an aircraft galley of a large quantity of plane de-icer and water did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Convention and the claim must therefore fail.

Arthern v Ryanair DAC (judgment handed down 16^th January 2023)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention on the Carriage of Passengers by Air states:

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.

This renders an airline or contracting carrier liable for a claim for death or personal injury as long as the claimant can show that (s)he suffered the injury as a result of an accident occurring during embarkation, carriage, or disembarkation. Crucially, the claimant need not prove fault on the part of the carrier, so 'pure' accidents are actionable under the Convention regime. However, to balance out this disadvantage to carriers the courts of the signatory states to the Convention have devised a particular meaning for the word 'accident', which must be an 'unexplained or unusual event external to the passenger'. The court in Arthern confirmed that this interpretation remains good law even following recent caselaw from the Court of Justice of the European Union which seemed to expand the definition to include events for which there is no ascertainable explanation.

What was the background?

The claimant slipped and fell during the course of a flight from Manchester to Hamburg on 12^th December 2017. The weather was cold, and the flight had been delayed so that the aircraft could be de-iced. The passengers had trodden a large quantity of water and de-icer into the cabin whilst embarking. A short time into the flight the claimant went to use...