Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

An airline is liable for the harm caused by a spilt cup of hot coffee

This ruling by the ECJ local copy seems to give the doctrine of “strict liability” new fangs.

This ruling is in the context of commercial air transport, but could we envisage a similar ruling applied to GA? To aircraft owners and operators, to flying schools and instructors, to airfield owners?

When I consented to a foreign government using my airfield for training, might I have been liable if their Twin Otter had fallen off the runway “for an unknown reason”?

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

could we envisage a similar ruling applied to GA? To aircraft owners and operators, to flying schools and instructors, to airfield owners?

Is strict liability applicable in those cases? The Montreal convention, at least, in only applicable to “international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward.”

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 21 Dec 15:27
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I thought that airlines have liability limits, specifically. Normal GA has no such limits, AFAIK, and the liability is according to the laws of the country in question.

Actually I wonder if the country being overflown is relevant, or the aircraft reg? Many years ago, if you were born on a ship or aircraft you got the citizenship of the reg of the vessel

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

A possible concern is that this ECJ ruling extends the liability of an air carrier in a way not previously envisaged.

At best, we may be denied open steaming cups of coffee on European flights in case we’re clumsy enough to spill them. At worst, the Court‘s doctrine of strict liability may poison other activities in connection with which consumers currently bear and enjoy some responsibility.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I thought that airlines have liability limits, specifically. Normal GA has no such limits, AFAIK, and the liability is according to the laws of the country in question.

That’s true, but if there is no legislation mandating strict liability, then there is no strict liability. From what I understood of the ECJ ruling, the airline wouldn’t have been liable if it wasn’t for the strict liability clause. AFAIK there is no such strict liability for the operator of noncommercial flights, so if you pal in the back seat spills coffee over himself, that’s not your problem, legally speaking.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
5 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top