death must have arisen external to the person concerned. It was regarded 13 as clear that the ‘event’ external to the passenger cannot be the passenger's slip or trip itself. 14 3. Fall incidents in Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention jurisprudence As expected, the case law on the WC and MC has had to deal with various fall incidents on several occasions, for which the following rulings can be cited as examples: In MacDonald v. Air Canada, the US Court of Appeal for the 1st Circuit had 15 to decide on a fall of a passenger at the baggage claim area in the airport building. The plaintif was standing at a pillar near the baggage carousel while her daughter was taking care of the bags. When the daughter turned around to receive the next piece of luggage, the plaintif fell for an undeterminable reason and injured her face, wrists and knee. The court saw no basis for qualifying this as an accident in the meaning of the Warsaw Convention because there was no ascertainable external impact. However, it also denied claims under the Warsaw Convention because the baggage claim was no longer part of the disembarkation process and the presence there therefore did not fall within the liability period of the Warsaw Convention. Barclay v. British Airways was based on the fndings that the plaintif had 16 slipped and fallen on a plastic strip covering the seat rails in the aisle between the rows of seats, during a fight from Phoenix, Arizona to London Heathrow and had been injured as a result. On the one hand, it would undoubtedly qualify as an accident if a fight attendant lost his balance and therefore spilled hot cofee on a passenger, just as it would undoubtedly not qualify as an accident if a passenger sufered a heart attack. If a passenger slips on the plane, he also loses his balance, but this does not say anything about whether the cause was due to the condition of the plane or the passenger's own physical condition. Since the plastic rail involved complied with all regulations, was in proper condition and was not unusual, there was no accident within the meaning of the Montreal Convention, because such an See Schmid in Giemulla/Schmid MÜ Art 17 Rn 46; Reuschle ibid. Rn 13; Jahnke, 13 Haftung bei Unfällen im internationalen Luftverkehr, 183 u. 226; Grant/Mason/Bunce Holiday Law6 13-008. Saggerson on Travel Law and Litigation7 [2022], p. 431 (10.51). 14 US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit 25.03.1971, MacDonald v. Air Canada, 439 15 F.2d 1402 [1st Cir. 1971]. Court of Appeal for England and Wales (Civil Divison) 18.12.2008, Barclay v. 16 British Airways, [2008] EWCA Civ 1419.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==