Barclay v British Airways Plc

An accident under article 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 requires a distinct causative event outside the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft. The event must happen independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger.

A passenger’s contact with an inert and normally functioning part of the aircraft, followed by a personal reaction such as slipping or falling, does not without more constitute an accident. The Convention’s autonomous meaning of “accident” preserves its balance between passenger protection and limited carrier liability.

A passenger sustained a knee injury when her foot slipped on a standard plastic strip while she was lowering herself into her aircraft seat. The strip, cabin layout and aircraft systems were neither defective nor contrary to aviation regulations.

The Oxford County Court dismissed her damages claim. She appealed with the Recorder’s permission. Because article 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 provided the exclusive remedy, the central issue was whether contact or interaction between a passenger and an aircraft in its normal state could amount to an “accident”.

1. Appeal dismissed. Article 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 contemplates a distinct causative event which is outside the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft and happens independently of anything done or omitted by the passenger. Laws LJ delivered the judgment, with which Thomas and Wilson LJJ agreed.
2. The meaning of “accident” is autonomous. Its natural meaning is the starting point, but the term must be construed within the Convention’s exclusive scheme and the balance it establishes between passengers and carriers. Judicial formulations remain guides to applying the Convention rather than substitutes for its language.
3. The approach in Air France v Saks (1985) 470 US 392 was applicable. An injury must be caused by an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger. The proposition that an internal reaction to the usual and expected operation of the aircraft is not an accident formed part of the Supreme Court’s explanation of the Convention and was not a dispensable gloss.
4. The requirement of an external event was also supported by the English authorities. It prevents article 17.1 from extending to virtually every injury involving contact with normally installed and functioning aircraft equipment. Such an extension would disturb the careful allocation of risk established by the Convention.
5. The passenger’s foot merely contacted an inert strip which was installed and operating as intended. Her resulting slip and fall were a personal reaction to the aircraft’s normal operation. There was no separate event external to her and therefore no accident within article 17.1.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The passenger’s appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the conclusion that no accident within article 17.1 of the Montreal Convention 1999 had occurred.
2. Oxford County Court: Mr Recorder West-Knights QC dismissed the personal injury claim on 27 February 2008 and granted permission to appeal.