• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.53-83
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to study precedent cases of the Air carrier liability for passengers. The article 17 of Warsaw Convention (also in Montreal Convention article 17-1) provides the Air carrier liability for passengers which is the most essential part of the Air carrier liability. According to these Conventions, 1) the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger. Precedents and theories have disagreements on whether the damage covers the mental injury as well. 2) The carrier is liable for damage sustained from aviation accident. The definition of 'aviation accident' is becoming problematic. 3) The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The question at issue is the range of the operations of embarking or disembarking. This paper introduces the precedents (also, the model precedents) about the carriers liability for passengers and related cases, so as to help understand the trend of judicial decisions. Furthermore, the cases, once took all of the attention of the international air carriers, concerned with the 'Economy class syndrome' (DVT : Deep Vein Thrombosis) are also presented. Under the new Montreal Convention, the carriers liability for passengers will continue to be the main issue. Thus it is required that academics as well as practical businesses may keep up their studies about this issue.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.101-134
• /
• 1995

Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention regulates the requirements of passenger tickets, Article 4 Paragraph 3, the requirements of baggage tickets, Article 8, the requirements of airway bills. In this article the writer has discussed the legal nature of the documents of air carriage, such as air waybills, passenger tickets and baggage checks. Further, the writer has also discussed several issues relating to the use of the documents of air carriage under the Warsaw Convention. Article 3 Paragraph 2, as well as Article 4 Paragraph 4 and 9 provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Convention which evade or limit his liability. In particular, the Montreal Agreement of 1966 provides that the notification on the carrier's liability in passenger ticket should be printed in more than 10 point type size with contrasting ink colors. However, another question is whether the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention in case the type size is below 10 points. The Convention does not specify the type size of certain parts in passenger tickets and only provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of liability limit, when a carrier fails to deliver the ticket to passenger. However, since the delivery of passenger tickets is to provide an opportunity for passengers to recognize the liability limit under the Convention and to map out a subsequent measures, the carrier who fails to give this opportunity shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention. But some decisions argue that when the notice on the carrier's liability limit is presented in a fine print in a hardly noticeable place, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself under the Convention. Meanwhile, most decisions declare that regardless of the type size, the carrier is entitled to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention. The reason is that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement stipulate that the carrier is deprived from the right to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when violating the notice requirement. In particular, the main objective of the Montreal Agreement is not on the notice of liability limit but on the increase of it. The latest decisons also maintain the same view. This issue seems to have beeen settled on the occasion of Elisa Chan, et al. vs. Korean Airlines Ltd. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the type size of passenger ticket can not be a target of controversy since it is not required by law, after a cautious interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement highlighting the fact that no grounds for that are found both in the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement. Now the issue of type size can hardly become any grounds for the carrier not to exclude himself from the liability limit. In this regard, any challenge to raise issue on type size seems to be defeated. The same issue can be raised in both airway bills and baggage tickets. But this argument can be raised only to the tranportation where the original Convention is applied. This creates no problem under the Convention revised by the Hague Protocol, because the Hague Protocol does not require any information on weight, bulk, size, and number of cargo or baggage. The problem here is whether the carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when no information on number or weight of the consigned packages is available in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. Currently the majority of decisions show positive stance on this. The carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when the requirement of information on number and weight of consigned packages is skipped, because these requirements are too technical and insubstancial. However some decisions declare just the opposite. They hold that the provisions of the Convention Article 4 is clear, and their meaning and effect should be imposed on it literally and that it is neither unjust nor too technical for a carrier to meet the minimum requirement prescribed in the Convention. Up to now, no decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue is available.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.107-142
• /
• 2012

An aircraft has been one of the most important transportation means and disputes due to damage caused by delay of the aircraft happen many times out of ones related to the air transport. In 2011, the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law was established to regulate national air transport and the legislative system of air carrier's liability to handle delay of passengers or baggage was legislated here. Although there are some clauses related to the legislative system of air carrier's liability, they are very important because they deal with disputes due to damage caused by delay of the aircraft. The Air Transport Act in Commercial Law has a good point of adopting the global standard of 1999 Montreal Convention, but it has also a bad point of having the problems of 1999 Montreal Convention. There are some contents to be modified in the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law. First, the definition of 'Delay of Aircraft' needs to be enacted because it is important to materialize air carrier's liability due to damage caused by delay. Second, it is necessary to modify the clause in which air carrier's liability due to damage caused by delay of passengers is divided into two things, one is in case of national air transport and the other is in case of international air transport, and the limited amount of air carrier's liability in national air transport is eight times less than the latter because they are not so helpful to air carriers but too disadvantageous to aircraft passengers. Third, it is also necessary to amend the clause in which the limited amount of air carrier's liability due to damage caused by loss damage or delay of baggage has been legislated same without classifying the case into loss damage and delay, because they are generally different from each other in terms of extent of damage, therefore the limited amount of air carrier's liability by delay of baggage should be classified into in case of loss damage and in case of delay. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to air carrier's liability by aircraft damage be developed continually by sufficient study and discussion about the necessity of amending it such as the one mentioned above.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.97-118
• /
• 2015

This study reviews the judgements by the Korean Supreme Court on the time of delivery of goods, as it depends on which bonded place the goods are kept for the purpose of the customs clearance. Thereafter, this study analyzes the Ocean Carrier's liability, when the cargoes are mis-delivered without the presentation of bill of lading in relation to the specific bonded place such as an independent bonded warehouse or a self-use bonded warehouse. Furthermore, considering that voyage charter is a kind of marine transport, this study also reviews whether or not the Court's judgements, which has been developed in respect of the carriage of affreightment, could be applied to voyage charter in respect of the time of delivery goods and the Ocean Carrier's liability for mis-delivery. Lastly, in the case that the substantial importer takes the goods from the independent bonded warehouse without the presentation of bill of lading after the customs clearance, it is noted that the Court has made the Ocean Carrier liable for the mis-delivery through the application of theory of double deposit contract. The position of the Court would be understandable in terms of the protection for the bona-fide holder of bill of lading, but this study reviews the limitation of liability as the device for the protection of the Ocean Carrier, considering the situation where the Ocean Carrier is somewhat unreasonably sacrificed under the bonded system provided for the convenience of substantial importer.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to research the contents and issues of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Act of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, comparing to the related provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Montreal Convention in respect of the international carriage by air was adopted in 1999, and Korea has ratified the Montreal Convention in 2007. However, there is now no national legislation in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code in July 2008, and the draft legislation is now being reviewed by the National Assembly. The draft provisions of Part VI the Carriage by Air are basically adopting most of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of cargo by air and some draft provisions are applying the related provisions of the Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage of cargo by land and sea. In respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, the contents of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by air are composed of the provisions in respect of the cause of the liability of the and the application for the non-contractual claim, the limit of liability, the exoneration from liability, the extinguishment of liability, the notice of damage to cargo, the liability of the agents and servants of the carrier, and the liability of the actual carrier and successive carrier. The draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code is different from the provisions of the Montreal Convention is respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air as follows : the draft Article 913 paragraph 1 provides additionally the riot, civil war and quarantine as the exoneration causes from the liability for damage to the cargo of the carrier in the Article 18 paragraph 2 of the Montreal Convention. In respect of the liability of the carrier in carriage of cargo by air, the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air does not provide the settlement by arbitration of dispute relating to the liability of the carrier and the requirement of adequate insurance covering the liability of the carrier which are provided in the Montreal Convention. In author's opinion, it is desirable that the above mentioned provisions such as the arbitration and the insurance shall be inserted into the draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code. In conclusion, the legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code shall be made by the National Assembly as soon as possible for the smooth and equitable compensation for damage to cargo arising during the carriage by air.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2008

Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.303-328
• /
• 2000

International Trade has led to the increase of the demand of international transport, and also the development of transport vehicles has been promoting the volumes of international trade. Therefore, the development of international transport not only incurs claims concerning transportation but also establishes various international rules to settle the claims between the shippers and the carriers in the course of transport. With a view to settling the claims successfully, the men who are concerned in the transport have to know the principle and scope of carrier's Liability. In this paper, I would like to find out the principle of Liability for the shippers. Therefore, I classify the Liability principle of the international transporter under the UNs Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Good(1980) and UNCTDAD/ICC Rules(1991) in three system - Network Liability System, Uniform Liability System and Modified Uniform Liability System.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.9-28
• /
• 2003

The Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the amendments thereto including the Hague Protocol, Montreal Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4, the Guadalajara Convention and the IATA Intercarrier Agreements, which are the rules (as called "War saw System") have played as a major rule in the international air transportation for more than 70 years, will be replaced by the Montreal Convention of 1999 for its effectiveness on November 4, 2003. While a major portion of the Montreal Convention follows the language of the Warsaw System, the Montreal Convention makes significant changes to the scope and extent of the carrier's liability, expands the jurisdictions where the carrier can be sued, and recognizes the effect of code sharing on air carrier liability. The Montreal Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation since the diplomatic efforts in the mid-1920's which resulted in the enactment of the Warsaw Convention. Until now, the legal liability of almost all the international air carriers has been governed by the Warsaw System. The Montreal Convention incorporates provisions of these instruments to create a single document and to set a uniform regime for carrier liability in international transportation. At the same time the issue of the low liability limits of the Warsaw has been resolved to a more satisfactory level in the Montreal Convention. The Convention has been hailed as consumer friendly and progressive in nature. If this Convention is ratified by Korea, the virtual elimination of the liability limits between the passengers and the airlines will become law by treaty. The airlines in Korea as well as Korean consumers of international air carriage will immensely benefit from the ratification. As opposed to the Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention has been described to be the one that is no longer a Convention for airlines, but it would serve the interests of both the consumers and the air carriers.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.47-85
• /
• 1989

The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.