BT v Laudamotion GmbH (2022) C-111/21 CJEU (3rd Chamber)
Court of Justice of the European Union, Third Chamber
Facts
8 On 1 March 2019, BT embarked on a flight operated by Laudamotion between London (United Kingdom) and Vienna (Austria).
9 The left engine of the aircraft of that flight exploded during take-off, causing an evacuation of passengers. BT disembarked that aircraft via the emergency exit and was hurled several metres through the air by the jet blast from the right engine which had not yet been shut down. The applicant has since been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder for which she is receiving medical treatment.
10 BT brought an action before the Bezirksgericht Schwechat (District Court, Schwechat, Austria) against Laudamotion for a declaration that it was liable under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention and for payment of the sums of EUR 4 353.60 in respect of treatment costs incurred and EUR 2 500 for pain and suffering, plus costs and expenses. She stated that, in any event, Laudamotion was liable under Austrian law, which was additionally applicable.
Issue(s)
Does the phrase ‘bodily injury’ in Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention 1999 rule out recovery by a passenger of damages for purely mental injury?
Discussion
The Third Chamber answered the question above in the negative, finding that purely mental injuries could be recovered under Article 17:
23 As regards the ordinary meaning of the concept of ‘bodily injury’ provided for in Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention, it must be pointed out that, as the Advocate General did in point 25 of his Opinion, that the term ‘injury’ refers to an impairment of an organ, tissue or cell due to an illness or accident, whereas the term ‘bodily’ refers to the physical part of a living entity, namely the human body.
24 Although the ordinary meaning of the concept of ‘bodily injury’ cannot be interpreted as excluding psychological injury linked to such bodily injury, the same is not true, as in the present case, as is apparent from the documents before the Court, of medically proven psychological injury, which has no link to bodily injury, in the ordinary meaning of that concept. Such an interpretation would amount to blurring the distinction between bodily injury and psychological injury.
25 However, the fact that the concept of ‘bodily injury’ was used in the wording of Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention does not necessarily presuppose that the authors of that convention intended to exclude, in the event of an ‘accident’ within the meaning of that provision, the liability of air carriers where that accident has caused psychological injury to a passenger which is not linked to any bodily injury having the same cause.
26 As regards the preparatory works which led to the adoption of that convention, it is true that none of the proposals aimed at expressly including the concept of ‘psychological injury’ in the text of the Montreal Convention was successful. However, as the Advocate General observed in point 41 of his Opinion, it is also apparent from the preparatory works that the concept of ‘bodily injury’ was adopted ‘on the basis that, in certain States, damages for psychological injuries can be recovered under certain conditions, that case-law develops in this area, and that it is not envisaged that there will be interferences with that development, which depends on case-law in areas other than international carriage by air’ (minutes of the 6th meeting of the Plenary Commission of 27 May 1999, International Conference on Air Law, Montreal, 10 to 28 May 1999, Vol. I, minutes, p. 243).
27 Moreover, as regards the objectives of the Montreal Convention, it should be borne in mind that amongst them, according to recitals 2 and 3 of that convention, apart from the modernisation and consolidation of the Warsaw Convention, it is ensuring ‘protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution’, in particular in the event of an accident, by means of a system of strict liability for air carriers. The need for fair compensation, which also requires equal treatment for passengers who have suffered injuries, whether bodily or psychological, of the same severity as a result of the same accident, would be called into question if Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention were to be interpreted as precluding compensation for psychological injuries caused by such an accident, where they are not linked to any bodily injury.
28 The situation of a passenger who has suffered a psychological injury as a result of an accident may, depending on the seriousness of the harm resulting from it, be comparable to that of a passenger who has suffered bodily injury.
29 Consequently, it must be held that Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention allows compensation for psychological injury caused by an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, which is not linked to ‘bodily injury’, within the meaning of that provision.
Useful for
Damages available for purely mental injuries under Article 17
Mental injuries recoverable under Convention
