항공운송증권(航空運送證卷) (Documents of Air Carriage)
- 최준선
-
- 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
- /
- 제7권
- /
- pp.101-134
- /
- 1995
-
Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention regulates the requirements of passenger tickets, Article 4 Paragraph 3, the requirements of baggage tickets, Article 8, the requirements of airway bills. In this article the writer has discussed the legal nature of the documents of air carriage, such as air waybills, passenger tickets and baggage checks. Further, the writer has also discussed several issues relating to the use of the documents of air carriage under the Warsaw Convention. Article 3 Paragraph 2, as well as Article 4 Paragraph 4 and 9 provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Convention which evade or limit his liability. In particular, the Montreal Agreement of 1966 provides that the notification on the carrier's liability in passenger ticket should be printed in more than 10 point type size with contrasting ink colors. However, another question is whether the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention in case the type size is below 10 points. The Convention does not specify the type size of certain parts in passenger tickets and only provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of liability limit, when a carrier fails to deliver the ticket to passenger. However, since the delivery of passenger tickets is to provide an opportunity for passengers to recognize the liability limit under the Convention and to map out a subsequent measures, the carrier who fails to give this opportunity shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention. But some decisions argue that when the notice on the carrier's liability limit is presented in a fine print in a hardly noticeable place, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself under the Convention. Meanwhile, most decisions declare that regardless of the type size, the carrier is entitled to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention. The reason is that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement stipulate that the carrier is deprived from the right to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when violating the notice requirement. In particular, the main objective of the Montreal Agreement is not on the notice of liability limit but on the increase of it. The latest decisons also maintain the same view. This issue seems to have beeen settled on the occasion of Elisa Chan, et al. vs. Korean Airlines Ltd. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the type size of passenger ticket can not be a target of controversy since it is not required by law, after a cautious interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement highlighting the fact that no grounds for that are found both in the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement. Now the issue of type size can hardly become any grounds for the carrier not to exclude himself from the liability limit. In this regard, any challenge to raise issue on type size seems to be defeated. The same issue can be raised in both airway bills and baggage tickets. But this argument can be raised only to the tranportation where the original Convention is applied. This creates no problem under the Convention revised by the Hague Protocol, because the Hague Protocol does not require any information on weight, bulk, size, and number of cargo or baggage. The problem here is whether the carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when no information on number or weight of the consigned packages is available in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. Currently the majority of decisions show positive stance on this. The carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when the requirement of information on number and weight of consigned packages is skipped, because these requirements are too technical and insubstancial. However some decisions declare just the opposite. They hold that the provisions of the Convention Article 4 is clear, and their meaning and effect should be imposed on it literally and that it is neither unjust nor too technical for a carrier to meet the minimum requirement prescribed in the Convention. Up to now, no decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue is available.