1. 10th Annual McGill Conference on International Aviation Liability & Insurance 22 – 23 June 2017
WHAT IS AN “ACCIDENT” UNDER THE WARSAW/MONTREAL CONVENTIONS; UNRULY PASSENGERS AND LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE

2. Should the carrier be liable for assault by one passenger of another?

3. Article 17 Warsaw Convention:
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.
Article 17 (1)  Montreal Convention:
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

4. Air France vs Saks  470 US 392– “Unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger”.
Barclay vs BA  (2008) EWCA Civ   “accident” is a distinct event, not having been any part of the usual, normal expected operation of the aircraft.
Price vs BA 23 Avi 18,465 (SD NY 1992)- a fist fight between two passengers is not a characteristic risk of air travel and such an incident is not an accident within the meaning of the Warsaw Convention as the incident complained didn’t bear any relation to the operation of the aircraft.

5. Wallace vs Korean Air 214 F 3d 293 (2nd Cir
Wallace vs Korean Air 214 F 3d 293 (2nd Cir. 2000) – in a case of sexual assault by a fellow passenger the close proximity of the economy class passenger seats and the fact that it was dark, made the plaintiff vulnerable to the sexual assault and the airline was held liable.
Lahey vs Singapore Airlines 115 F. Supp. 2d 464 (SD NY 2000) - the cramped conditions in Economy class contributed towards the altercation and the airline was held liable.
O’Grady vs BA 134 F.Supp. 2d 407 (E.D. Pa. 2001) -  an assault by a passenger upon another passenger is not an “accident” within the meaning of the Warsaw convention as a matter of law, it is a question on facts

6. What will be the liability exposure of air marshals who subdue an unruly passenger?

7. Article 6 of Tokyo Convention
1 The aircraft commander may, when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, on board the aircraft, an offence or act contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 1, impose upon such person reasonable measures including restraint which are necessary: (a) to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein; or (b) to maintain good order and discipline on board; or (c) to enable him to deliver such person to competent authorities or to disembark him in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
2 The aircraft commander may require or authorize the assistance of other crew members and may request or authorize, but not require, the assistance of passengers to restrain any person whom he is entitled to restrain. Any crew member or passenger may also take reasonable preventive measures without such authorization when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein.

8. Montreal Protocol amendment to Article 6 of the Tokyo Convention
3. An in-flight security officer deployed pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement or arrangement between the relevant Contracting States may take reasonable preventive measures without such authorization when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft or persons therein from an act of unlawful interference, and, if the agreement or arrangement so allows, from the commission of serious offences.
4. Nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to create an obligation for a Contracting State to establish an in-flight security officer programme or to agree to a bilateral or multilateral agreement or arrangement authorizing foreign in-flight security officers to operate in its territory.

9. Article 10 of Tokyo Convention with Montreal Protocol changes
For actions taken in accordance with this Convention, neither the aircraft commander, any other member of the crew, any passenger, any inflight security officer, the owner or operator of the aircraft, nor the person on whose behalf the flight was performed shall be held responsible in any proceeding on account of the treatment undergone by the person against whom the actions were taken.

10. Article 9 – Tokyo Convention
1. The aircraft commander may deliver to the competent authorities of any Contracting State in the territory of which the aircraft lands any person who he has reasonable grounds to believe has committed on board the aircraft an act which, in his opinion, is a serious offence according to the penal laws of the State of registration of the aircraft.
3. The aircraft commander shall furnish the authorities to whom any suspected offender is delivered in accordance with the provisions of this Article with evidence and information which, under the laws of the State of registration of the aircraft, are lawfully in his possession.

11. Article 18 bis Montreal Protocol
Nothing in this Convention shall preclude any right to seek the recovery, under national law, of damages incurred, from a person disembarked or delivered pursuant to Article 8 or 9 respectively.