Judges M Safjan, N Piçarra (Rapporteur), N Jääskinen, M Gavalec
Advocate General N Emiliou
The claimant passenger flew from Israel to Austria on a fight operated by the defendant airline. During the flight a jug containing hot coffee fell from the catering trolley and scalded the passenger. First aid was administered to him on board the aircraft. The passenger brought a claim in Austria seeking compensation for his injuries from the airline together with a declaration that the airline was liable for all future damage resulting from the aggravation of his burns on account of inadequate first aid administered on board the aircraft. The claim was brought outside the two-year limitation period provided for by article 35(1) of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (1999). However, the passenger submitted that the Convention did not apply to his claim, since the first aid he received was not an “accident” within the meaning of article 17(1) of that Convention, but that, instead, his claim was governed by national law under which the limitation period was three years, so that it was not time-barred. The claim was dismissed by the first instance court and on appeal by the regional court, on the ground that his action was time-barred, since it fell within the scope of the Montreal Convention. The passenger appealed to the Austrian Supreme Court, which stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling the question, inter alia, whether first aid, administered on board an aircraft following an “accident”, within the meaning of article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention, and which led to further bodily injury to the passenger which could be distinguished from the actual consequences of the accident, was to be regarded, together with the triggering event, as a single accident.
On the reference—
Held, it was not always possible to attribute the occurrence of damage to an isolated event where that damage was the result of a series of interdependent events. Therefore, where there was a series of intrinsically linked events that took place successively, without interruption, in space and time, that series of events had to be regarded as constituting a single “accident” within the meaning of article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention. In the present case, in view of the continuity in space and time between the jug of coffee falling and the first aid administered to the passenger, it could not be disputed that there was a causal link between the jug of coffee falling and the aggravation of the bodily injuries caused by it on account of inadequate first aid being administered. Accordingly, article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention meant that the inadequate first aid administered on board an aircraft to a passenger, which aggravated the bodily injuries caused by an “accident”, within the meaning of that provision, was to be regarded as forming part of that accident (judgment, paras 22–24, 28, operative part).
L Specht for the claimant passenger.
A Danner for the defendant airline.
J Möller, J Heitz and M Hellmann, agents, for the German Government.
G Braun, K Simonsson, G Wilms and N Yerrell agents, for the European Commission.