An air passenger’s unfortunate fall down the stairs and an ‘accidental’ decision of the CJEU Michael Wukoschitz 1. The case facts of JR v Austrian Airlines. 2. The concept of ‘accident’ in Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention jurisprudence. 3. Fall incidents in Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention jurisprudence. 4. The CJEU’s previous case law and the GA’s opinion in the case JR v. Austrian Airlines. 5. The CJEU judgment in the case JR v. Austrian Airlines. 6. Criticism. The Montreal Convention (MC)1 provides for strict liability (up to the liability limit of Art 21(1)) of the carrier for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger if that death or injury was caused by an accident on board the aircraft or in the course of embarking or disembarking.2 As in the Warsaw Convention (WC),3 the term ‘accident’, which is central to liability, is not defined in the MC, which is why case law and literature have dealt extensively with this term. Recently, the interpretation of this term in connection with the fall of a passenger on a mobile passenger staircase when disembarking from the aircraft was once again referred to the CJEU by an Austrian Court.4 The result of the interpretation in its most recent decision,5 according to which such a fall for ‘no ascertainable reason’ falls under the term ‘accident’, breaks with the established case law of national courts in numerous Member States and thus holds considerable explosive power. Keywords: Montreal Convention, accident, case JR v. Austrian Airlines. DOI https://doi.org/10.60559/ijtthl2023-006 1 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air [1999]. 2 Article 17 para 1 MC. 3 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air [1929]. 4 LG Korneuburg (Regional Court Korneuburg) 15.09.2020, 22 R 122/20a. 5 CJEU, judgement of 02.06.2022 in case C-598/20 – JR v Austrian Airlines.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==