Chaudhari v British Airways Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1997 |
| Date | 07 May 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Damages - Warsaw Convention - carrier not liable for fall
A passenger suffering from a pre-existing paralysis to the left side of his body and was injured when he fell as he tried to leave his seat, did not sustain an injury rendering the carrier liable under article 17 of the Warsaw Convention.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Leggatt, Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Mummery) so held on April 16 dismissing the appeal of Ram Kamal Chaudhari against Judge Krickler who on November 22, 1995, in Willesden County Court had struck out his claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT said that the word "accident" focused on the cause and not the effect. It was to be contrasted with "occurrence" in article 18.
Because the Convention was an international treaty it had to be treated purposively: Sidhu v British Airways plcTLRWLR (The Times December 13, 1996: [1997] 2 WLR 26, 36, 41). In Air France v Saks ((1985) 1 S & B Av R VII/165, 171) the US Supreme Court said that liability under the article arose only if the facts showed that the injury was caused by an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger.
The word "accident" was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barclay v British Airways Plc [County Court (UK)]
... ... The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Air France v Saks (1985) 470 US 392 ... Carswell v Qantas (2 July 1994 , NSW District Court). Chaudhari v British AirwaysUNK (unreported, 16 April 1997, CA) ... Craig v Air France (1994) 45F 3d 435 ... Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation [2005] 2 CLC 1083 ; [2006] 1 AC 495 ... MacDonald v Air CanadaECAS (1971) 439 F ... ...
-
Barclay v British Airways Plc
...is no accident; there is no event which might qualify as such. This situation is not far from the actual facts in ( Chaudhari unreported: transcript 16 April 1997, Court of Appeal), to which I will refer. (3) The third situation is this present case. On the one hand, there is no event entir......
-
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v Morris
...it had no relationship with the operation of the aircraft and thus involved no liability on the part of the appellant. 23 In Chaudhari v. British Airways (Unreported – 16 April 1997) the Court of Appeal in this country founded on the decision in Saks when rejecting a claim under Article 17 ......
-
King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd Re M
...or unusual event that is external to the passenger. This interpretation of the article was approved by the Court of Appeal in Chaudhari v British Airways plc The Times, 7 May 1997; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No 590 of 1997. It was also approved and applied by Lord Phillips ......