• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

With controlling Drones, although it was discussed in the previous study which showed a possibility. Which is personality and property rights of third parties could be violated while operating the drone with a video camera. But It's hard to find out precedents related to drones in Korea. In case of that someone try to control the drone which is equipped with a camera in a yard of neighborhood, the German District Court (Potsdam) considered an operator of drone has little bit of careless to do his duty and admit nonfeasance claim in the owner of the one's property for prevention to repetition of similar situation according to a nonfeasance claim for prevention to Section 1004 (1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code(BGB). The drone which is equipped with a camera have possibilities to disrupt property and personal rights of the owner. Because a danger in repetition is getting larger regarding the violation of law. Moreover, there is a case that someone shot down the drone which is equipped with a camer. Because it has a risk to interrupt private life and cause some dangerous in our life. The German district court(Riesa) recently have considered that controlling the drone with a camera in private spaces is illegal as a violation of personal life. In addtion to, the action of property owner shot down drone is a legal according to § 228 of the German Civil Code(BGB) which is caleed "Necessity". Although it is difficult to apply to foreign cases directly to Korea, similar cases are likely to be occurred in Korea. The decision of the German District Court showed implications to Korea. As demand for the camera-equipped drone increases in Korea, it is time to discuss specific measures for drone violations.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.279-310
• /
• 2015

The Montreal Convention is an agreement that governs the liability of air carriers for injury and death to passengers travelling internationally by air. The Montreal Convention serves as the exclusive legal framework for victims and survivors seeking compensation for injuries or death arising from accidents involving international air travel. The Montreal Convention sets monetary liability caps on damages in order to promote the financial stability of the international airline transport industry and protect the industry from exorbitant damages awards in courts that would inevitably bankrupt an airline. The Convention allows a litigant suing under the Convention to avoid the liability caps in instances where the airline's culpability for the injury or death is the direct result of negligence, another wrongful act, or an omission of the airline or its agents. The Montreal Convention identifies specific locations as appropriate venues to advance claims for litigants seeking compensation. These venues are closely tied to either the carrier's business operations or the passenger's domicile. In March 2015, in an act of suicide stemming from reactive depression, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 intentionally crashed the aircraft into the French Alps killing the passengers and the remaining crew. Subsequent to the crash, there were media reports that Lufthansa made varying settlement offers to families of the passengers who died aboard the flight ranging from $8,300 USD to $4.5 Million USD depending on the passengers' citizenship. The unverified offers by Lufthansa prompted outcries from the families of the decedent passengers that they would institute suit against the airline in a more plaintiff friendly jurisdiction such as the United States. The first part of this article accomplishes two goals. First, it examines the Montreal Convention's venue requirement along with an overview of the recoverable damages from countries comprising the citizenship of the passengers who were not American. The intentional crash of Germanwings flight 9525 by its First Officer encompasses the possibility that Lufthansa may be exposed to unlimited compensatory damages beyond the liability caps contained in the Convention. The second part of this article explores the application of the Convention's liability limits to the Germanwings flight to demonstrate that the likelihood of escaping the liability limits is slim.