Richard Arthern v Ryanair DAC

Richard Arthern v Ryanair DAC

The judge correctly applied the legal test for an '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 wintry conditions, was not unusual or unexpected from the perspective of a reasonable passenger. Therefore, the appellant's injury did not result from an 'accident' within the meaning of the Convention, and the claim was properly dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Richard Arthern; Respondent/defendant: Ryanair DAC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Montreal Convention, Air Carrier Liability, Personal Injury, Definition of Accident, Standard of Review on Appeal
Aviation Law Tort Law International Law Montreal Convention Air Carrier Liability Personal Injury Definition of Accident Standard of Review on Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Arthern

Appellant/claimant

Ryanair DAC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant'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 from the perspective of a reasonable passenger

Ratio Decidendi

The judge correctly applied the legal test for an '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 wintry conditions, was not unusual or unexpected from the perspective of a reasonable passenger. Therefore, the appellant's injury did not result from an 'accident' within the meaning of the Convention, and the claim was properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed