• 복합운송
• /
• s.141
• /
• pp.14-15
• /
• 2003

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.45-85
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of "accident" under the Warsaw system including the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999. Most leading case on this subject is Air France v. Saks(470 U.S. 392 (1985)). In the Saks case, it was held that the definition of an accident must be applied flexibly, and most courts have adhered to the definition of accident in Saks case, the application of accident has been less than consistent. However, most cases have held that if the event is usual and expected operation of the aircraft, then no accident has occurred. Courts have also held that where the injury results from passenger's own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operations of the aircraft, it is not caused by an accident. As the Warsaw drafters intended to create a system of liability rules that would cover all hazards of air travel, the carrier should liable for the inherent risks of air travel. It is right in that the carrier is in a better position than the passenger to control the risks during air travel. Most US courts have held that carriers are not liable for one passenger's assault on the other passenger. The interactions between passengers are not part of the normal operations of the aircraft and are therefore not covered by the word "accident" under Art 17 of the Warsaw Convention. It is regretful that the Montreal Convention did not attempt to clarify the concepts of accident in itself. In the light of an emerging tendency to hold the air carrier liable for occurrences that do not exactly go to the operation of the aircraft, it is desirable to regulate that the carrier is liable for an "event" instead of an "accident" in accordance with the Guatemala City protocol.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.55-95
• /
• 2010

The meaning and application of 'lesion corporelle' in the context of a variety of mental or psychic injuries is less clear, while there is very little disagreement about its literal translation. U.S. Court decisions since Floyd allow recovery for a range of claims involving emotional injury under Article 17; in some cases there is no recovery, while in others there is full recovery, depending on the allegations and the nexus between the alleged injury and any related or accompanying physical injury. Courts are in agreement that pure emotional injury is not compensable under the Convention. Most courts agree that emotional injury is not compensable in those cases where it has resulted only in physical manifestations such as weight loss or sleeplessness. At the same time, most courts generally agree that emotional injury is compensable if it proximately flows from a physical injury. The issue as to whether the courts would associate PTSD with bodily injury as envisioned in the present Warsaw structure or even the new regime reflected in the Convention proposed by ICAO would largely depend on the extent to which courts would be ready to embrace the compelling scientific findings with regard to mental distress and its application within the term 'bodily injury'. Taken together, these points when the current under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, 'physical injury' notion of 'mental injury' is to be extended. Of course, the current terms of the Warsaw Convention have been maintaining a precedent for many countries appear to have a statue of the original purpose of the treaty does not contribute to the diffusion. Therefore, in future treaties 'bodily injury', the term 'injury', the term 'personal injury' or 'health undermined' the term should be replaced or revised.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the Warsaw system, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. Korea has made the national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act on April 29, 2011, and it has brought into force on November 24, 2011. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act of Korea has the provisions on the liability for damage caused to passenger, the liability for damage caused to baggage, and the liability for damage caused to cargo. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Act of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier by the Korean government will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier' liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air, and to provide proper compensation to the passenger or consignor who has suffered damage, subject to the defenses and limitations it sets out.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2008

Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.9-28
• /
• 2003

The Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the amendments thereto including the Hague Protocol, Montreal Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4, the Guadalajara Convention and the IATA Intercarrier Agreements, which are the rules (as called "War saw System") have played as a major rule in the international air transportation for more than 70 years, will be replaced by the Montreal Convention of 1999 for its effectiveness on November 4, 2003. While a major portion of the Montreal Convention follows the language of the Warsaw System, the Montreal Convention makes significant changes to the scope and extent of the carrier's liability, expands the jurisdictions where the carrier can be sued, and recognizes the effect of code sharing on air carrier liability. The Montreal Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation since the diplomatic efforts in the mid-1920's which resulted in the enactment of the Warsaw Convention. Until now, the legal liability of almost all the international air carriers has been governed by the Warsaw System. The Montreal Convention incorporates provisions of these instruments to create a single document and to set a uniform regime for carrier liability in international transportation. At the same time the issue of the low liability limits of the Warsaw has been resolved to a more satisfactory level in the Montreal Convention. The Convention has been hailed as consumer friendly and progressive in nature. If this Convention is ratified by Korea, the virtual elimination of the liability limits between the passengers and the airlines will become law by treaty. The airlines in Korea as well as Korean consumers of international air carriage will immensely benefit from the ratification. As opposed to the Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention has been described to be the one that is no longer a Convention for airlines, but it would serve the interests of both the consumers and the air carriers.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2020

The current air transportation industry is facing a lot of changes not only in the quantitative growth of the market, but also in the legal aspects. For many years, the Warsaw Convention has contributed to the uniform discipline of civil carriers' legal liabilities arising from international aviation accident and has fulfilled the duties of legal guardians for the development of the air transport industry. In the process, however, the consumer interests of the air transport industry did not have much protection compared to other industries. In response, the Montreal Convention has effected for protecting the interests of aviation consumers, and there are numerous legal changes around the world to protect aviation consumers like passengers. The mental damages of airline passengers arising from the accident can also be understood as part of the protection of air consumers. Considering that the US Federal Court has dealt with the recognition of mental damages for air passengers since the early 1990s. However, Korean judicial precedent still excludes mental anguishes from the scope of damage compensation. From this point of view, it is considered academically meaningful to analyze the latest case of the US federal court. Recently, the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit in Doe v Etihad Airways applied a different interpretation against the traditional opinion: passengers could not recover for mental distress unless that mental distress resulted from a bodily injury sustained in an airplane accident. The background of the court's conclusions can be explained in many ways, among other things, unlike the Warsaw Convention the new international rule, Montreal Convention is recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2013

Air transport today is a means of transport that is optimized for exchanges between nations. Around the world, has experienced an increase in operating and the number of airline route expansion that has entered into the international aviation agreements in order to take advantage of the air transport efficient, but the possibility of the occurrence of air transport accidents increased. When compared to the accident of other means of transport, development of air transport accidents, not high, but it leads to catastrophe aviation accident occurs. Air Transport accident many international transportation accident than domestic transportation accident, in the event of an accident, the analysis of the legal responsibility of the shipper or the like is necessary or passenger air carrier. Judgment of the legal order of discipline of air transport accident is a classification of the type of air transport agreement. Depending on the object, air transport agreements are classified into the contract of carriage of aviation of the air passenger transportation contract. For casualties occurs, air passenger transportation accident is a need more discussion of legal discipline for this particular. Korean Commercial Code, it is possible to reflect in accordance with the actual situation of South Korea the contents of the treaty, which is utilized worldwide in international air transport, even on the system, to control land, sea, air transport and welcoming to international standards. However, Korean Commercial Code, the problem of the Montreal Convention has occurred as it is primarily reflecting the Montreal Convention. As a cause of liability for damages, under the Commercial Code of Korea and the contents of the treaty precedent is reflected, the concept of accident is necessary definition of the exact concept for damages of passengers in particular. Cause of personal injury or death of passengers, in the event of an accident to the "working for the elevation" or "aircraft" on, the Montreal Convention is the mother method of Korea Commercial Code, liability for damages of air carrier defines. The Montreal Convention such, continue to be a matter of debate so far in connection with the scope of "working for the lifting of" the concepts defined in the same way from Warsaw Convention "accident". In addition, it is discussed and put to see if you can be included mental damage passenger suffered in air transport in the "personal injury" in the damage of the passenger is in the range of damages. If the operation of aircraft, injury accident, in certain circumstances, compensation for mental damage is possible, in the same way as serious injury, mental damage caused by aviation accidents not be able to live a normal life for the victim it is damage to make. So it is necessary to interpret and what is included in the injury to the body in Korea Commercial Code and related conventions, non-economic damage of passengers, clearly demonstrated from the point of view of prevention of abuse of litigation and reasonable protection of air carrier it must compensate only psychological damage that can be. Since the compensation of delay damages, Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention, Korea Commercial Code, there are provisions of the liability of the air carrier due to the delayed arrival of passenger and baggage, but you do not have a reference to delayed arrival, the concept of delay arrangement is necessary. The strict interpretation of the concept of delayed arrival, because it may interfere with safe operation of the air carrier, within the time agreed to the airport of arrival that is described in the aviation contract of carriage of passenger baggage, or, these agreements I think the absence is to be defined as when it is possible to consider this situation, requests the carrier in good faith is not Indian or arrive within a reasonable time is correct. The loss of passenger, according to the international passenger Conditions of Carriage of Korean Air, in addition to the cases prescribed by law and other treaties, loss of airline contracts, resulting in passengers from a service that Korean Air and air transport in question do damage was is, that the fact that Korean Air does not bear the responsibility as a general rule, that was caused by the negligence or intentional negligence of Korean Air is proof, negligence of passengers of the damage has not been interposed bear responsibility only when it is found. It is a clause in the case of damage that is not mandated by law or treaty, and responsible only if the negligence of the airline side has been demonstrated, but of the term negligence "for" intentional or negligent "Korean Air's Terms" I considered judgment of compatibility is required, and that gross negligence is appropriate. The "Korean Air international passenger Conditions of Carriage", airlines about the damage such as electronic equipment that is included in the checked baggage of passengers does not bear the responsibility, but the loss of baggage, international to arrive or depart the U.S. it is not the case of transportation. Therefore, it is intended to discriminate unfairly passengers of international flights arriving or departure to another country passengers of international flights arriving or departure, the United States, airlines will bear the responsibility for the goods in the same way as the contents of the treaty it should be revised in the direction.