Richard Arthern v Ryanair DAC

For an injury to fall within article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention, it must be caused by an external, distinct event that is unusual, unexpected or untoward, rather than by the normal operation of the aircraft. The assessment is objective and is made from the standpoint of an ordinary, reasonable passenger with experience of commercial air travel and reasonable knowledge of established airline practice. Negligence is not an element of the inquiry. On an appeal limited to review, the appellate court should not substitute its own factual assessment for that of the trial judge. Liquid tracked into an aircraft after de-icing on a cold day was capable of being treated as part of the expected operation of the flight and did not, on the facts found, constitute an accident.

The claimant appealed, with permission, against the dismissal by HHJ Evans in the Manchester County Court of his claim for damages under article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention. During a flight from Manchester to Hamburg, he slipped near an aircraft toilet on liquid found to be a mixture of de-icing fluid and water or ice tracked into the cabin by passengers boarding across the tarmac.

The trial judge accepted the claimant’s evidence but concluded that de-icing and the tracking of liquid into the cabin were not unusual or unexpected events for a reasonable passenger in those conditions. The central issues were whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal test for an accident and whether her factual conclusions were open to her on the evidence.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under CPR 52.21(1) and (3), an appeal is a review rather than a rehearing and succeeds only where the decision below was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.

2. Article 17(1) requires injury caused by an accident. The relevant inquiry is whether the injury was caused by an event which was external to the passenger and unusual, unexpected or untoward, rather than resulting from the usual, normal and expected operation of the aircraft. The court must apply the Convention’s language consistently with its international purpose and without introducing negligence-based reasoning.

3. The assessment of whether an event was unusual or unexpected is made from the standpoint of an ordinary, reasonable passenger with experience of commercial air travel and reasonable knowledge of established or common airline practice. The test is objective, not subjective.

4. Adverse weather is a state of affairs rather than necessarily an event. De-icing the aircraft and the tracking of liquid into the cabin were the relevant events. The trial judge was entitled to find that, on a cold and icy day when the aircraft had been de-iced and numerous passengers had crossed wet tarmac, the presence of a substantial quantity of liquid near the entrance and toilets was not unusual or unexpected.

5. The trial judge had considered both the quantity of liquid and the fact that it had not dried quickly. She was entitled to draw inferences from the evidence despite the absence of direct evidence about de-icing procedures. The appellate court should not fill evidential gaps or substitute its own assessment of what was unusual or unexpected. The claimant had therefore failed to establish an accident within article 17(1), and the claim remained dismissed.

• High Court (King's Bench Division) — On appeal from the Manchester County Court, the appeal against the order of HHJ Evans dated 20 July 2022 was dismissed.