Arthern v Ryanair DAC [2023] EWHC 46 (KB) (16 January 2023)

Arthern v Ryanair DAC [2023] EWHC 46 (KB) (16 January 2023)

The judge correctly applied the legal test for 'accident' under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention and was entitled to find that the presence of de-icing fluid and water on the aircraft floor, tracked in by passengers in cold weather, was not unusual or unexpected from the perspective of a reasonable passenger. Therefore, the claimant's injury did not result from an 'accident' as defined by the Convention.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 46 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Richard Arthern; Respondent/defendant: Ryanair DAC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Montreal Convention, Carrier Liability, Definition of Accident, International Carriage by Air, Article 17(1)
Aviation Law Personal Injury International Law Montreal Convention Carrier Liability Definition of Accident International Carriage by Air Article 17(1)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Arthern

Appellant/claimant

Ryanair DAC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's injury constituted an 'accident' under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention
  2. 2 Whether the presence of de-icing fluid and water on the aircraft floor was unusual or unexpected so as to amount to an accident

Ratio Decidendi

The judge correctly applied the legal test for 'accident' under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention and was entitled to find that the presence of de-icing fluid and water on the aircraft floor, tracked in by passengers in cold weather, was not unusual or unexpected from the perspective of a reasonable passenger. Therefore, the claimant's injury did not result from an 'accident' as defined by the Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages remains dismissed
  • No order for assessment of damages