Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.31691/KASL35.1.2.

Recent Trends in Compensation for Mental Anguish of Airline Passengers  

Lee, Chang-Jae (Chosun Unviersity)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy / v.35, no.1, 2020 , pp. 33-62 More about this Journal
Abstract
The current air transportation industry is facing a lot of changes not only in the quantitative growth of the market, but also in the legal aspects. For many years, the Warsaw Convention has contributed to the uniform discipline of civil carriers' legal liabilities arising from international aviation accident and has fulfilled the duties of legal guardians for the development of the air transport industry. In the process, however, the consumer interests of the air transport industry did not have much protection compared to other industries. In response, the Montreal Convention has effected for protecting the interests of aviation consumers, and there are numerous legal changes around the world to protect aviation consumers like passengers. The mental damages of airline passengers arising from the accident can also be understood as part of the protection of air consumers. Considering that the US Federal Court has dealt with the recognition of mental damages for air passengers since the early 1990s. However, Korean judicial precedent still excludes mental anguishes from the scope of damage compensation. From this point of view, it is considered academically meaningful to analyze the latest case of the US federal court. Recently, the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit in Doe v Etihad Airways applied a different interpretation against the traditional opinion: passengers could not recover for mental distress unless that mental distress resulted from a bodily injury sustained in an airplane accident. The background of the court's conclusions can be explained in many ways, among other things, unlike the Warsaw Convention the new international rule, Montreal Convention is recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.
Keywords
Airline Passengers; Compensation for Damage; Mental Amguish; Aviation Accident; Montreal Convention; Warsaw Convention;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 국토교통부 보도자료, "'16년 연간 항공여객 1억 명 돌파", (2016. 12. 19.)
2 서울동부지법, 2019. 7. 3., 2018나29933 판결
3 대전지법 2009. 6. 26. 2007가합3098 판결
4 김두환 外, "항공운송 및 우주개발 관련 국제조약 및 외국 입법례 분석과 우리나라 법제의 개선과제", 2007년도 법무부 연구용역 과제보고서
5 김종복, "몬트리올협약상의 항공여객운송인의 책임", 한국항공우주정책.법학회지, 23(2), 31-66 (2008)
6 이덕환, "채무불이행과 위자료", 법학논총 제26집 제2호 (2007)
7 이창규, 소재선, "항공운송인의 손해배상책임 원인에 관한 법적 고찰 -여객 손해배상책임을 중심으로-", 한국항공우주정책.법학회지, 28(2), 4-36.(2013)
8 이창재, "EU법상 항공소비자 보호에 관한 연구 - McDonagh v. Ryanair 사례를 중심으로 -", 법학논고 제49집(2015)
9 이창재, "미국 연방법규상 항공여객보호제도에 관한 연구", 항공우주정책.법학회지 제28권 제2호(2011)
10 이창재, "항공소비자 보호제도의 입법방향", 항공우주정책.법학회지 제32권 제1호 (2017)
11 이창재, "해상운송과 항공운송에 관한 최신 국제협약의 비교", 한국해법학회지 제33권 제2호(2011)
12 정준우, "여객의 인적 손해에 대한 항공운송인의 책임 - 2008년 상법 항공운송편 제정안을 중심으로 -", .상사법연구., 제28권 제3호, 한국상사법학회 (2009)
13 조홍제.안진영, "국제항공법상 정신적 손해에 관한 연구", 항공우주법학회지 제25권 제1호(2010)
14 최문기, "채무불이행에 있어서 위자료청구권에 관한 일고찰", 비교사법 제6권 1호 (1999)
15 최준선, 국제항공운송법론, (삼영사, 1987)
16 홍순길 外, 항공산업론 한국항공대학교 출판부
17 Cunningham, The Montreal Convention: Can Passengers Finally Recover for Mental Injuries? 2008 Vanderbilt J Transnat'l L 1048.
18 Dempsey, Paul Stephen, Accidents & Injuries in International Air Law: The Clash of the Titans (October 24, 2011). ANNALS OF AIR & SPACE LAW, Vol. XXXIV, Institute of Air & Space Law, McGill University, 2009.
19 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Baladoni, 15 Ala. App. 316, 73 So. 205 (1916)
20 Bobian v. Czech Airlines, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 5898 (3rd Cir. 2004)
21 Carey v. United Airlines, 255 F.2nd 1044 (9th Cir. 2001)
22 Chendrimada v. Air-India, 802 F.Supp.1089 (S.D.N.Y.1992).
23 Doe v. Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C., 870 F.3d 406, 417.20 (6th Cir. 2017).
24 Eastern Airlines v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 111 S.Ct. 1489 (1991).
25 Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 368 (2d Cir. 2004).
26 In re Air Crash at Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 1999 (Lloyd v. American Airlines), 291 F.3d 503, 509 (8th Cir.) (Lloyd), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 974 (2002)
27 In re Inflight Explosion on Trans World Airlines, Inc, 778 F. Supp. 625, 637 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
28 Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 654, 666 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
29 Janvier v. Sweeney, [1919] 2 K.B. 316
30 Johnson v. Sampson, 167 Minn. 203, 208 N.W. 814 (1926)
31 Lee v. American Airlines, 355 F.3rd 386 (5th Cir. 2004)
32 Terrafranca v. Virgin Atlantic Airways, 151 F.3rd 108 (3rd Cir. 1998).
33 Lloyd v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 291 F.3d 503, 512 (8th Cir.2002).
34 Nickerson v. Hodges, 146 La. 735, 84 So. 37 (1920)
35 Rogers v. Williard, 144 Ark. 587, 223 S.W. 15 (1920)
36 Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B.D. 57
37 Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 814 F. Supp. 605, 606 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)