• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.53-83
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to study precedent cases of the Air carrier liability for passengers. The article 17 of Warsaw Convention (also in Montreal Convention article 17-1) provides the Air carrier liability for passengers which is the most essential part of the Air carrier liability. According to these Conventions, 1) the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger. Precedents and theories have disagreements on whether the damage covers the mental injury as well. 2) The carrier is liable for damage sustained from aviation accident. The definition of 'aviation accident' is becoming problematic. 3) 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. The question at issue is the range of the operations of embarking or disembarking. This paper introduces the precedents (also, the model precedents) about the carriers liability for passengers and related cases, so as to help understand the trend of judicial decisions. Furthermore, the cases, once took all of the attention of the international air carriers, concerned with the 'Economy class syndrome' (DVT : Deep Vein Thrombosis) are also presented. Under the new Montreal Convention, the carriers liability for passengers will continue to be the main issue. Thus it is required that academics as well as practical businesses may keep up their studies about this issue.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

With controlling Drones, although it was discussed in the previous study which showed a possibility. Which is personality and property rights of third parties could be violated while operating the drone with a video camera. But It's hard to find out precedents related to drones in Korea. In case of that someone try to control the drone which is equipped with a camera in a yard of neighborhood, the German District Court (Potsdam) considered an operator of drone has little bit of careless to do his duty and admit nonfeasance claim in the owner of the one's property for prevention to repetition of similar situation according to a nonfeasance claim for prevention to Section 1004 (1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code(BGB). The drone which is equipped with a camera have possibilities to disrupt property and personal rights of the owner. Because a danger in repetition is getting larger regarding the violation of law. Moreover, there is a case that someone shot down the drone which is equipped with a camer. Because it has a risk to interrupt private life and cause some dangerous in our life. The German district court(Riesa) recently have considered that controlling the drone with a camera in private spaces is illegal as a violation of personal life. In addtion to, the action of property owner shot down drone is a legal according to § 228 of the German Civil Code(BGB) which is caleed "Necessity". Although it is difficult to apply to foreign cases directly to Korea, similar cases are likely to be occurred in Korea. The decision of the German District Court showed implications to Korea. As demand for the camera-equipped drone increases in Korea, it is time to discuss specific measures for drone violations.