| AIRCRAFT — Carriage by air— Accident— Passenger slipping on aircraft and sustaining bodily injury — Whether “accident” — Carriage by Air Act 1961, Sch 1B, art 17.1
Barclay v British Airways plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1419; [2009] WLR (D) 1
CA: Laws, Thomas, Wilson LJJ: 18 December 2008
Where a passenger slipped on a standard fitting plastic strip embedded in the floor of an aircraft in its normal state and sustained bodily injury, there was no “accident” within the meaning of art 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 since there was no distinct event which was not part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft and which had happened independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger.
The Court of Appeal so held in reserved judgments when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Beverley Barclay, against the decision of Mr Recorder West-Knights QC of 27 February 2008 given in the Oxford County Court by which he dismissed the claimant’s claim for damages for personal injuries against the defendant, British Airways plc.
LAWS LJ said that the claimant had slipped on a standard fitting plastic strip embedded in the floor of the aircraft. The issue was whether, where injury was caused by an event constituted by some contact or interaction between the passenger and the aeroplane in its normal state, such an event was an “accident” within the meaning of art 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999, which had force of law in England by virtue of Sch 1B to the Carriage by Air Act 1961. Air France v Saks (1985) 470 US 392, the leading case on the predecessor provision, art 17 of the Warsaw Convention 1929, affirmed by the House of Lords in Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [2002] 2 AC 628 and DVT and Air Travel Group Litigation [2006] 1 AC 495, provided the formulation, “an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger”. The present case was less clear than certain examples however and it might be said that that formulation did not conclude the question. Art 17.1 contemplated, by the term “accident”, a distinct event, not being any part of the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft, which happened independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger. That gave the term a reasonable scope which sat easily in the balance the Convention struck. There was no accident in the present case that was external to the claimant, no event which happened independently of anything done or omitted by her. All that happened was that her foot had come into contact with the inert strip and she had fallen. Accordingly the appeal would be dismissed.
THOMAS and WILSON LJJ agreed. |
