Montreal Convention

The claimant was about to embark for his flight from Düsseldorf to Hamburg on Feb. 9, 2013, when he slipped on the boarding bridge because of a wet floor caused by condensation. As a result he suffered from a fracture of his patella. He filed a claim for damages against the defendant air carrier. The first instance court (LG Düsseldorf) dismissed the claim and the appelate court (OLG Düsseldorf) confirmed this decision: according to the Montral Convention, the air carrier was only libale for accidents caused by a hazard which was characteristic for aviation.

According to an article published on "Lexology", on May 25, 2017  the Brazilian Supreme Federal Tribunal has passed a judgement which acknowledges the application of the Montreal Convention in international air transport cases. Although Brazil is party to the Warsaw and the Montreal Convention which both provide for their exclusivity, Brazilian courts have been rather reluctant in applying these conventions and tended to give precedence to national law, in particular the Brazilian Consumer Defence Code.

Upon request of the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) in proceedings between Air Baltic Corporation AS (‘Air Baltic’) and Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba (Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Lithuania - ‘the Investigation Service’), the Court of Justice of the European Union has provided an interpretation of the Montreal Convention.

Thailand which is not a party of the Montreal Convention yet has adopted a new  International Carriage by Air Act to come into force on May 14, 2015. The Act will apply to domestic and international carriage by air and will replace the application of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code to aviation cargo and passenger claims. It intends to approximate national law to the Montreal Convention of 1999 inter alia by introducing liability limits and a two years limitation period. An English translation of the Thai International Carriage by Air Act B.E.