The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Thursday 19 December (Case C-532/18) that an airline is liable for damage caused by a spilled hot cup of coffee, regardless of the flight conditions or risks involved.
The Court of Justice has replied to the claim for damages made by a young girl against the Austrian company Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (now insolvent). In 2015, the 6-year-old suffered second-degree burns when, during a flight from Palma de Mallorca (Spain) to Vienna (Austria), the hot coffee served to her father on the folding table in front of his seat spilled for unknown reasons, the Court explained in a statement.
The airline argued that it was not at fault, as this was not an accident within the meaning of the "Montreal 1" Convention of May 1999, which governs the liability of airlines in the event of an accident. After a first favourable decision in 2015, the decision was overturned by another Austrian court, which held, inter alia, that the Convention required that a risk inherent in flight occur and that this condition had not occurred during the flight. The girl, legally represented by her father, who was seeking compensation of 8500 euros, had also not been able to prove that this risk had occurred.
On this point, in response to a request from the Austrian Supreme Court, the court acknowledged on Thursday that it could not be established whether the coffee cup had spilled due to a defect in the folding table or vibrations of the aircraft.
Asked to rule on the notion of “accident” within the meaning of the Montreal Convention, which does not define it, the Court held that the ordinary meaning given to the notion of “accident” is understood as an unintentional, unforeseen harmful event. Furthermore, the Court finds, in particular, that the Montreal Convention is intended to introduce a system of strict liability for airlines while preserving an “fair balance of interests”.
The Court therefore concluded that both the ordinary meaning of the notion of “accident” and the objectives of the Montreal Convention preclude airlines’ liability from being made subject to the condition that the risk inherent in air transport materialises. Nor can it be subordinated to the existence of a link between the “accident” and the operation or movement of the aircraft. The Court also pointed out that the Montreal Convention allows an airline to avoid or limit its liability by proving that the passenger caused or contributed to the damage.
On Thursday, the Court therefore replied that the concept of “accident” in question covers all situations occurring on board an aircraft in which an object used for passenger service has caused bodily injury to a passenger, without it being necessary to ascertain whether that injury resulted from a risk inherent in air transport. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)