accident required an external cause. Slipping after contact with a plastic strip was not sufcient for this. To qualify any fall due to contact with an existing, properly installed and functioning piece of aircraft equipment as an ‘accident’ would violate the balance of interests intended by the Montreal Convention. In 2010, the Austrian Supreme Court dealt with a staircase fall of an airline passenger: According to the fndings of the court of frst instance, the 17 plaintif, as a preferred passenger, had left the aircraft before all other passengers via a fold-out staircase, which had a handrail on the right and left. However, the plaintif could not use this handrail because she was holding a piece of luggage in each hand. She was wearing high-heeled shoes with a heel height of 8 to 10 cm. When she reached the second step, she fell forward and hit her head on the runway of the tarmac. The exact reason for the fall could not be determined. At the time of the fall, there was no passenger directly behind her; after the fall, one of the plaintif's shoes remained on the stairs. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had denied the existence of an accident, and dismissed the plaintif's appeal for lack of a substantial question of law. The ruling of the German Federal Court of 21.11.2017 as quoted above 18 dealt with the fall of a passenger due to a wet spot caused by condensation in the boarding bridge used for boarding and a patella fracture caused by this fall. The Federal Court assumed an injury due to an accident as a sudden event based on an external infuence. In Labbadia v. Alitailia, the plaintif had been using the passenger stairs at 19 the rear exit of the aircraft when it was snowing and - before he could hold on to the handrail - slipped on the stairs, which were slippery because of the snow, and fell headfrst. Again, the court examined whether there was an unusual or unexpected external event. While wintry weather with snowfall was not unusual or unexpected even in Milan, the plaintif should have expected a snow-free, covered passenger staircase. The use of an uncovered staircase was therefore to be regarded as an unusual, external event that had caused the injury. The court could not fnd contributory negligence because the plaintif had not immediately held on to the handrail. The most recent decision on a passenger falling down a staircase, prior to the CJEU ruling in JR v Austrian Airlines, probably was Moore v. British Airways. 20 OGH decision of 01.06.2010, 1 Ob 11/10i. 17 BGH judgement of 21.11.2017, X ZR 30/15. 18 High Court of Justice for England and Wales (Queen’s Bench Division) 31.07.2019, 19 Labbadia v. Alitalia, [2019] EWHC 2103. US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit 29.04.2022, Moore v. British Airways, No. 20 21-1037.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==